https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344292 Penalty under section 34(7) of the Gujarat VAT Act required an intention to evade or avoid tax, and the discretionary power under section 34(12) had to be exercised on relevant considerations. The assessee had sought clarification soon after the VAT regime changed, the liability position was capable of more than one interpretation, and the provisional assessment did not support a finding of tax evasion. Those circumstances indicated a bona fide error rather than a clandestine default, and the Tribunal's partial confirmation of penalty was unsupported by the record. The penalty was therefore not sustainable on the facts, and the Tribunal erred in sustaining any part of it. en-us Thu, 08 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Mar 2018 14:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344292 Penalty under section 34(7) of the Gujarat VAT Act required an intention to evade or avoid tax, and the discretionary power under section 34(12) had to be exercised on relevant considerations. The assessee had sought clarification soon after the VAT regime changed, the liability position was capable of more than one interpretation, and the provisional assessment did not support a finding of tax evasion. Those circumstances indicated a bona fide error rather than a clandestine default, and the Tribunal's partial confirmation of penalty was unsupported by the record. The penalty was therefore not sustainable on the facts, and the Tribunal erred in sustaining any part of it. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 08 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344292