https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385928 Penalty under Section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act could not be sustained without a finding that the assessee intended to evade tax. The only defect was a technical discrepancy in Form XXXI, which had been issued in the name of the holding company rather than the subsidiary importer. The goods were otherwise disclosed, and the assessee's relationship to the actual importer did not by itself establish evasion. Questions about accounting treatment and the taxability of the goods were matters for assessment proceedings, not penalty proceedings. In the absence of any recorded finding of intent to evade tax, the penalty was held unsustainable. en-us Thu, 16 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:46:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385928 Penalty under Section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act could not be sustained without a finding that the assessee intended to evade tax. The only defect was a technical discrepancy in Form XXXI, which had been issued in the name of the holding company rather than the subsidiary importer. The goods were otherwise disclosed, and the assessee's relationship to the actual importer did not by itself establish evasion. Questions about accounting treatment and the taxability of the goods were matters for assessment proceedings, not penalty proceedings. In the absence of any recorded finding of intent to evade tax, the penalty was held unsustainable. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 16 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385928