https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419821 Penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 cannot be upheld unless the authority records a cogent finding that the defect or omission reflects an intention to evade tax. Where goods were accompanied by Form-38 and the only irregularity was that one column remained blank, a mere technical lapse was insufficient to justify penalty. In the absence of any independent finding of evasion, the penalty was not sustainable. en-us Tue, 15 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Mar 2022 11:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419821 Penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 cannot be upheld unless the authority records a cogent finding that the defect or omission reflects an intention to evade tax. Where goods were accompanied by Form-38 and the only irregularity was that one column remained blank, a mere technical lapse was insufficient to justify penalty. In the absence of any independent finding of evasion, the penalty was not sustainable. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 15 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419821