https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448531 Penalty proceedings under Section 38 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, were not invalid merely because the inspection began under Section 29. A subsequent show cause notice was issued in Form VAT-N3 under Rule 31, calling the assessee to explain the proposed penalty, but no response was filed. The record also showed use of tracing paper and suppression of sales with stock discrepancy. On these facts, the objection that the matter remained confined to Section 29 was rejected, and the penalty was upheld. en-us Tue, 09 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 21 Jan 2024 21:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448531 Penalty proceedings under Section 38 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, were not invalid merely because the inspection began under Section 29. A subsequent show cause notice was issued in Form VAT-N3 under Rule 31, calling the assessee to explain the proposed penalty, but no response was filed. The record also showed use of tracing paper and suppression of sales with stock discrepancy. On these facts, the objection that the matter remained confined to Section 29 was rejected, and the penalty was upheld. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 09 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448531