<?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>1986 (5) TMI 255 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154412</link>
    <description>A permit requirement under the Bengal sales tax regime was held not to apply to a transporter who was neither a registered nor certified dealer and was merely carrying notified goods in inter-State transit through West Bengal. The court treated the permit provisions and associated rules as aimed at regulating movement by dealers and preventing evasion in local sales, not at restricting carriage where no rule imposed such an obligation on a non-dealer carrier. It further held that detention, seizure and penalty could not be sustained absent prima facie material that the goods were meant for sale in West Bengal, because the statute could not be construed to burden inter-State movement beyond legislative competence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:57:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171444" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (5) TMI 255 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154412</link>
      <description>A permit requirement under the Bengal sales tax regime was held not to apply to a transporter who was neither a registered nor certified dealer and was merely carrying notified goods in inter-State transit through West Bengal. The court treated the permit provisions and associated rules as aimed at regulating movement by dealers and preventing evasion in local sales, not at restricting carriage where no rule imposed such an obligation on a non-dealer carrier. It further held that detention, seizure and penalty could not be sustained absent prima facie material that the goods were meant for sale in West Bengal, because the statute could not be construed to burden inter-State movement beyond legislative competence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>