<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1981 (6) TMI 123 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153904</link>
    <description>A check-post declaration form and production procedure for import of taxable goods were examined against the statutory scheme and constitutional guarantees of trade and business. The court treated the declaration as part of the regulatory check-post mechanism, not as a separate permit requiring prior dealer authorisation, and accepted it as a preventive device to verify taxable consignments and curb evasion. Because the measure was authorised by the rules, had a direct nexus with the statutory object, and did not prohibit commerce but only regulated movement, the challenge under Articles 19(1)(g), 301 and 304 failed. The notice and form were upheld as valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2013 15:22:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170938" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (6) TMI 123 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153904</link>
      <description>A check-post declaration form and production procedure for import of taxable goods were examined against the statutory scheme and constitutional guarantees of trade and business. The court treated the declaration as part of the regulatory check-post mechanism, not as a separate permit requiring prior dealer authorisation, and accepted it as a preventive device to verify taxable consignments and curb evasion. Because the measure was authorised by the rules, had a direct nexus with the statutory object, and did not prohibit commerce but only regulated movement, the challenge under Articles 19(1)(g), 301 and 304 failed. The notice and form were upheld as valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>