https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464209 A mere clerical omission in Form 38, where the goods were otherwise accompanied by valid documents and their quantity and value were not doubted, does not by itself justify penalty under section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act. In penalty proceedings, the authority must establish intention to evade tax on the basis of material evidence; a blank column alone is insufficient to infer mens rea when the surrounding facts show no evasion. The Tribunal erred in reversing the first appellate finding without dislodging its conclusion that the omission was only a clerical mistake, so the penalty was set aside. en-us Mon, 28 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Oct 2025 21:29:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464209 A mere clerical omission in Form 38, where the goods were otherwise accompanied by valid documents and their quantity and value were not doubted, does not by itself justify penalty under section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act. In penalty proceedings, the authority must establish intention to evade tax on the basis of material evidence; a blank column alone is insufficient to infer mens rea when the surrounding facts show no evasion. The Tribunal erred in reversing the first appellate finding without dislodging its conclusion that the omission was only a clerical mistake, so the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Mon, 28 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464209