<?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>1989 (5) TMI 305 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155976</link>
    <description>Detention of notified timber at a check-post was within the authority of the sales tax law because permits were required for transport from notified places and verification of compliance with permit conditions was permitted under section 14A of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. Intention to evade tax was not required for such detention. On measurement, no codified or universally accepted trade standard for excluding alleged defects in sawn timber was established, and the applicant did not follow the ISI method relied on. The authorities recorded an excess over the permits on both measurement methods used during the inquiry, so the disputed quantity had to be regularised by obtaining a permit, failing which action could proceed according to law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2013 15:38:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173003" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (5) TMI 305 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155976</link>
      <description>Detention of notified timber at a check-post was within the authority of the sales tax law because permits were required for transport from notified places and verification of compliance with permit conditions was permitted under section 14A of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. Intention to evade tax was not required for such detention. On measurement, no codified or universally accepted trade standard for excluding alleged defects in sawn timber was established, and the applicant did not follow the ISI method relied on. The authorities recorded an excess over the permits on both measurement methods used during the inquiry, so the disputed quantity had to be regularised by obtaining a permit, failing which action could proceed according to law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155976</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>