https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343758 Remand was upheld because the record did not conclusively establish exemption on undisputed facts, and further evidence was needed on the true nature, timing and documentation of the sales and movement of goods. Exemption under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was not shown on the existing record because the second sale had not been clearly proved to occur during movement of the goods and after the first inter-State sale. Penalty could still operate under section 51(7)(b) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 where the material suggested possible evasion of tax due or likely to be due, even if no tax was presently payable under the State Act. en-us Tue, 30 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343758 Remand was upheld because the record did not conclusively establish exemption on undisputed facts, and further evidence was needed on the true nature, timing and documentation of the sales and movement of goods. Exemption under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was not shown on the existing record because the second sale had not been clearly proved to occur during movement of the goods and after the first inter-State sale. Penalty could still operate under section 51(7)(b) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 where the material suggested possible evasion of tax due or likely to be due, even if no tax was presently payable under the State Act. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 30 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343758