https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294575 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 was upheld because the adverse effect of the penalty order was felt by the industrial unit within the Bench's limits, so the territorial objection failed. On penalty, the court held that a mere failure to produce the prescribed declaration form at the check post did not justify action under section 45-A where the goods were supported by invoice and transport documents, no discrepancy in goods was found, and no deliberate intent to evade tax was established. A technical or venial breach, without conscious disregard or dishonest conduct, was insufficient to sustain the penalty; the orders were quashed and refund directed. en-us Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:03:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294575 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 was upheld because the adverse effect of the penalty order was felt by the industrial unit within the Bench's limits, so the territorial objection failed. On penalty, the court held that a mere failure to produce the prescribed declaration form at the check post did not justify action under section 45-A where the goods were supported by invoice and transport documents, no discrepancy in goods was found, and no deliberate intent to evade tax was established. A technical or venial breach, without conscious disregard or dishonest conduct, was insufficient to sustain the penalty; the orders were quashed and refund directed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294575