https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782676 Penalty under Section 48(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 requires a definite, material-based finding that the transaction was not duly recorded in the books of account and that there was an intention to evade tax. On the facts noted, the authorities relied on seizure and suspicion about a later book entry, but produced no survey, search, provisional assessment, or other material to verify suppression at the business premises. Mere doubt could not justify detention or penalty, so the impugned orders were unsustainable and the revision was allowed in favour of the assessee. en-us Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:57:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782676 Penalty under Section 48(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 requires a definite, material-based finding that the transaction was not duly recorded in the books of account and that there was an intention to evade tax. On the facts noted, the authorities relied on seizure and suspicion about a later book entry, but produced no survey, search, provisional assessment, or other material to verify suppression at the business premises. Mere doubt could not justify detention or penalty, so the impugned orders were unsustainable and the revision was allowed in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782676