https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337883 Penalty under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act was upheld because the authority recorded evidence-based findings that the goods were not properly accounted for and that there was an intention to evade tax. The material relied on included interception without relevant documents, a mismatch between the disclosed route and the interception point, the driver's statement pointing to a different destination, and corrections in the stock register. As those findings were supported by material evidence and were not shown to be perverse, the penalty order met the statutory requirements and required no interference in revision. en-us Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2017 07:23:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337883 Penalty under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act was upheld because the authority recorded evidence-based findings that the goods were not properly accounted for and that there was an intention to evade tax. The material relied on included interception without relevant documents, a mismatch between the disclosed route and the interception point, the driver's statement pointing to a different destination, and corrections in the stock register. As those findings were supported by material evidence and were not shown to be perverse, the penalty order met the statutory requirements and required no interference in revision. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337883