https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781864 HC set aside the penalty imposed under section 48(5) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008, holding that the finding of improper accounting and alleged re-use of OC stamp was based only on seizure of goods and not on any verification of books through survey, search, or provisional assessment. Relying on precedent that mere suspicion cannot justify penalty and that a definite finding of intention to evade tax is mandatory, HC held the Tribunal's conclusion to be perverse and unsupported by material. The impugned orders were quashed and the revision was allowed. en-us Thu, 20 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Nov 2025 07:36:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781864 HC set aside the penalty imposed under section 48(5) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008, holding that the finding of improper accounting and alleged re-use of OC stamp was based only on seizure of goods and not on any verification of books through survey, search, or provisional assessment. Relying on precedent that mere suspicion cannot justify penalty and that a definite finding of intention to evade tax is mandatory, HC held the Tribunal's conclusion to be perverse and unsupported by material. The impugned orders were quashed and the revision was allowed. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Thu, 20 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781864