https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392621 Penalty was sustained where inspection records and transport documents showed that the quantity of goods actually carried exceeded the quantity declared in the accompanying papers. The fact-finding authority treated the discrepancy as a clear misdeclaration and inferred that the goods were not correctly disclosed for transport with intent to evade tax, and the HC found no perversity in that conclusion. Objections based on the absence of physical verification did not displace the documentary and inspection evidence. Sections 50 and 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 were applied to uphold penalty for a difference in the nature or quantity of declared goods. en-us Wed, 12 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Feb 2020 05:53:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392621 Penalty was sustained where inspection records and transport documents showed that the quantity of goods actually carried exceeded the quantity declared in the accompanying papers. The fact-finding authority treated the discrepancy as a clear misdeclaration and inferred that the goods were not correctly disclosed for transport with intent to evade tax, and the HC found no perversity in that conclusion. Objections based on the absence of physical verification did not displace the documentary and inspection evidence. Sections 50 and 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 were applied to uphold penalty for a difference in the nature or quantity of declared goods. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 12 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392621