https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148371 Section 42(3)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was upheld as a valid anti-evasion measure because the taxable event had already occurred and the tax liability had become exigible. The Court distinguished the invalidated power under section 41(4), noting that the challenged seizure and confiscation power operated in a situation where the goods had been sold and were being transported across the State border. On that basis, seizure, confiscation and penalty in lieu of confiscation were treated as ancillary to the power of taxation, and the writ petitions seeking quashing of the penalty order and redelivery of the goods failed. en-us Thu, 21 Dec 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:24:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148371 Section 42(3)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was upheld as a valid anti-evasion measure because the taxable event had already occurred and the tax liability had become exigible. The Court distinguished the invalidated power under section 41(4), noting that the challenged seizure and confiscation power operated in a situation where the goods had been sold and were being transported across the State border. On that basis, seizure, confiscation and penalty in lieu of confiscation were treated as ancillary to the power of taxation, and the writ petitions seeking quashing of the penalty order and redelivery of the goods failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 21 Dec 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148371