https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782819 Penalty under section 13-A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act could not be sustained on seizure of goods alone. The High Court held that, where the relevant sale had been disclosed in the monthly return and no contemporaneous survey, inspection, search, or verification was conducted, there was no reliable material to prove that the transaction was omitted from the books with intent to evade tax. The authorities also failed to address the plea that the invoice was covered by an exemption notification. On that basis, the penalty order and appellate affirmation were set aside. en-us Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Dec 2025 19:17:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782819 Penalty under section 13-A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act could not be sustained on seizure of goods alone. The High Court held that, where the relevant sale had been disclosed in the monthly return and no contemporaneous survey, inspection, search, or verification was conducted, there was no reliable material to prove that the transaction was omitted from the books with intent to evade tax. The authorities also failed to address the plea that the invoice was covered by an exemption notification. On that basis, the penalty order and appellate affirmation were set aside. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782819