https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420175 Penalty under Section 54(1)(19) of the Uttar Pradesh VAT Act could not be sustained without a specific finding that the input tax credit claim was false or fraudulent. The Tribunal had relied on general references to earlier orders and a limited factual basis, but it did not clearly record the statutory ingredients needed to confirm penalty. The matter therefore required verification of the earlier orders and a fresh finding on the relevant purchases. The penalty was not finally affirmed, and the issue was remitted for reconsideration on the required statutory basis. en-us Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420175 Penalty under Section 54(1)(19) of the Uttar Pradesh VAT Act could not be sustained without a specific finding that the input tax credit claim was false or fraudulent. The Tribunal had relied on general references to earlier orders and a limited factual basis, but it did not clearly record the statutory ingredients needed to confirm penalty. The matter therefore required verification of the earlier orders and a fresh finding on the relevant purchases. The penalty was not finally affirmed, and the issue was remitted for reconsideration on the required statutory basis. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420175