https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406486 Penalty under Section 53(12)(a) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 is attracted only when non-production of transport documents is without sufficient cause and is not a mere technical lapse at interception. Where the goods were supported by invoices, the movement was not disputed, the temporary non-production of e-sugam was explained, and no material showed an attempt to evade tax, the penalty was not sustainable. Once the first appellate authority accepted sufficient cause on the facts, revisional interference under Section 64(1) to restore the penalty was unjustified. en-us Fri, 26 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Apr 2021 08:07:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406486 Penalty under Section 53(12)(a) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 is attracted only when non-production of transport documents is without sufficient cause and is not a mere technical lapse at interception. Where the goods were supported by invoices, the movement was not disputed, the temporary non-production of e-sugam was explained, and no material showed an attempt to evade tax, the penalty was not sustainable. Once the first appellate authority accepted sufficient cause on the facts, revisional interference under Section 64(1) to restore the penalty was unjustified. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 26 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406486