https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432757 A rectification under Section 31 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was treated as valid despite a prior first appellate order, because the earlier appeal did not extinguish the assessing authority's power to correct an error apparent on the face of the record. The merger objection therefore failed. The penalty was also sustained under Section 54(1)(14) because Form-38 omitted Bill No. 195, a discrepancy found to be deliberate and indicative of an intention to evade tax rather than a mere clerical lapse. The revised statutory label did not affect the underlying liability, and the penalty remained enforceable. en-us Tue, 10 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2023 07:00:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432757 A rectification under Section 31 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was treated as valid despite a prior first appellate order, because the earlier appeal did not extinguish the assessing authority's power to correct an error apparent on the face of the record. The merger objection therefore failed. The penalty was also sustained under Section 54(1)(14) because Form-38 omitted Bill No. 195, a discrepancy found to be deliberate and indicative of an intention to evade tax rather than a mere clerical lapse. The revised statutory label did not affect the underlying liability, and the penalty remained enforceable. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 10 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432757