https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389182 Penalty under the U.P. VAT Act could not be sustained where the appellate fact-finding authorities accepted that machinery was imported only for demonstration, not for sale, and was duly accounted for after import. The Tribunal's conclusion that there was no intention to evade tax was based on material and evidence on record, so the penalty deleted under Section 54(1)(14) was not liable to be restored in revision. Judicial interference was therefore unwarranted because the factual finding of absence of tax evasion survived scrutiny. en-us Mon, 04 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Dec 2019 10:41:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389182 Penalty under the U.P. VAT Act could not be sustained where the appellate fact-finding authorities accepted that machinery was imported only for demonstration, not for sale, and was duly accounted for after import. The Tribunal's conclusion that there was no intention to evade tax was based on material and evidence on record, so the penalty deleted under Section 54(1)(14) was not liable to be restored in revision. Judicial interference was therefore unwarranted because the factual finding of absence of tax evasion survived scrutiny. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 04 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389182