<?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 (3) TMI 353 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156569</link>
    <description>Under section 14C of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and rule 90AA(1) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, the declaration in form XXXC was required from the transporter for movement of notified goods through West Bengal. The text states that, where the driver sought time at the first check-post to arrange the transporter&#039;s agent and obtain the form, immediate detention was not justified if reasonable opportunity to comply was available. It also states that penalty liability under section 14C rests on the transporter, not the owner of the goods, and that proceedings against the owner amounted to an assumption of jurisdiction not authorised by the statute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Sep 2013 16:54:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173596" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (3) TMI 353 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156569</link>
      <description>Under section 14C of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and rule 90AA(1) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, the declaration in form XXXC was required from the transporter for movement of notified goods through West Bengal. The text states that, where the driver sought time at the first check-post to arrange the transporter&#039;s agent and obtain the form, immediate detention was not justified if reasonable opportunity to comply was available. It also states that penalty liability under section 14C rests on the transporter, not the owner of the goods, and that proceedings against the owner amounted to an assumption of jurisdiction not authorised by the statute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156569</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>