https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189826 Penalty under section 48(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 cannot be sustained unless the authority records a finding that the statutory infraction occurred and that the dealer intended to evade tax. Mere discrepancies in explanations or accompanying documents are insufficient without a definite finding that the goods were not properly accounted for, were not traceable to a bona fide dealer, or were undervalued with evasion intent. As no such findings were recorded, the penalty was held unsustainable on the stated reasons and the matter required fresh consideration by the assessing authority. en-us Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jan 2017 17:58:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189826 Penalty under section 48(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 cannot be sustained unless the authority records a finding that the statutory infraction occurred and that the dealer intended to evade tax. Mere discrepancies in explanations or accompanying documents are insufficient without a definite finding that the goods were not properly accounted for, were not traceable to a bona fide dealer, or were undervalued with evasion intent. As no such findings were recorded, the penalty was held unsustainable on the stated reasons and the matter required fresh consideration by the assessing authority. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189826