<?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>1994 (12) TMI 298 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157845</link>
    <description>Goods transported without proper and genuine prescribed documents may be detained, with penalty and security justified where the supporting papers are inconsistent or appear not bona fide. Here, the transport was supported only by an unnumbered pro forma invoice, while the other documents conflicted and the gate pass referred to a different vehicle number. On those factual findings, the authority held that the goods were not covered by valid documents under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, and the security deposit could be adjusted as penalty. The revision failed because no question of law arose from the concurrent findings on document genuineness.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:40:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174868" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (12) TMI 298 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157845</link>
      <description>Goods transported without proper and genuine prescribed documents may be detained, with penalty and security justified where the supporting papers are inconsistent or appear not bona fide. Here, the transport was supported only by an unnumbered pro forma invoice, while the other documents conflicted and the gate pass referred to a different vehicle number. On those factual findings, the authority held that the goods were not covered by valid documents under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, and the security deposit could be adjusted as penalty. The revision failed because no question of law arose from the concurrent findings on document genuineness.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157845</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>