https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372001 Penalty for alleged evasion under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act could not be sustained on the basis of receipt of contract money alone, including mobilisation advance, because the Department had not first established that the works contract was actually executed or that taxable incidence had arisen. Rule 9(1)(c) applies only when a works contract is in execution and goods have accrued to tax liability, so the factual basis for invoking the Explanation to Section 67 and quantifying evasion was missing. However, the assessee's failure to disclose the receipt in the returns justified a limited penalty, and the substantive penalty was set aside while a nominal penalty was retained. en-us Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Dec 2018 06:33:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372001 Penalty for alleged evasion under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act could not be sustained on the basis of receipt of contract money alone, including mobilisation advance, because the Department had not first established that the works contract was actually executed or that taxable incidence had arisen. Rule 9(1)(c) applies only when a works contract is in execution and goods have accrued to tax liability, so the factual basis for invoking the Explanation to Section 67 and quantifying evasion was missing. However, the assessee's failure to disclose the receipt in the returns justified a limited penalty, and the substantive penalty was set aside while a nominal penalty was retained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372001