https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782819 HC allowed the revision and set aside the penalty imposed u/s 13-A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. It held that mere seizure of goods and a handwritten challan, without further verification, could not justify the inference that the transaction was unrecorded or intended to evade tax, especially when the transaction was disclosed in the monthly return and this was not disputed. The Court noted that no survey, inspection, search, or provisional assessment was conducted to verify the books of account. In the absence of cogent evidence of intent to evade tax, initiation and confirmation of maximum penalty at 40% of the goods' value were held unsustainable. 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 HC allowed the revision and set aside the penalty imposed u/s 13-A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. It held that mere seizure of goods and a handwritten challan, without further verification, could not justify the inference that the transaction was unrecorded or intended to evade tax, especially when the transaction was disclosed in the monthly return and this was not disputed. The Court noted that no survey, inspection, search, or provisional assessment was conducted to verify the books of account. In the absence of cogent evidence of intent to evade tax, initiation and confirmation of maximum penalty at 40% of the goods' value were held unsustainable. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782819