<?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 (9) TMI 368 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156092</link>
    <description>A statutory declaration in Form 27B was held valid because the term &quot;consignor&quot; was given its ordinary meaning: the person actually sending the goods must sign, and a seller is not the consignor merely by virtue of ownership or sale. On the admitted facts, the petitioners had booked the vehicle and arranged the movement of goods, so the consignor objection failed. As other matters still required statutory investigation, immediate final interference was declined, the inquiry was directed to be completed within a stipulated time, and the petitioners were left to pursue the statutory appeal after the final order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2025 16:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173119" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (9) TMI 368 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156092</link>
      <description>A statutory declaration in Form 27B was held valid because the term &quot;consignor&quot; was given its ordinary meaning: the person actually sending the goods must sign, and a seller is not the consignor merely by virtue of ownership or sale. On the admitted facts, the petitioners had booked the vehicle and arranged the movement of goods, so the consignor objection failed. As other matters still required statutory investigation, immediate final interference was declined, the inquiry was directed to be completed within a stipulated time, and the petitioners were left to pursue the statutory appeal after the final order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156092</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>