<?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>1991 (1) TMI 394 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156195</link>
    <description>Penalty under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act&#039;s check-post machinery provision cannot be imposed mechanically for mere non-production of documents at the moment of inspection. The provision is aimed at preventing tax evasion, so the authority must consider the dealer&#039;s explanation and the surrounding facts, including whether there was any real attempt to evade tax. Where the goods movement was bona fide and the documents showed transit from Delhi to Madras via Bangalore, imposition of the maximum penalty was treated as arbitrary and inconsistent with the object of the provision and the freedom of inter-State trade. The penalty was held unsustainable, and revision of the appellate order was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:21:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173222" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (1) TMI 394 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156195</link>
      <description>Penalty under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act&#039;s check-post machinery provision cannot be imposed mechanically for mere non-production of documents at the moment of inspection. The provision is aimed at preventing tax evasion, so the authority must consider the dealer&#039;s explanation and the surrounding facts, including whether there was any real attempt to evade tax. Where the goods movement was bona fide and the documents showed transit from Delhi to Madras via Bangalore, imposition of the maximum penalty was treated as arbitrary and inconsistent with the object of the provision and the freedom of inter-State trade. The penalty was held unsustainable, and revision of the appellate order was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156195</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>