https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218316 The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and confirmed the penalty imposed by the check-post authority on the owner of the goods. The Court emphasized that the penalty for possession or movement of goods in breach of the law was rightly imposed on the owner, who had the duty to provide necessary declarations. The Court clarified that the term "person in-charge of the goods" included the owner, contrary to the High Court's interpretation, thereby upholding the penalty on the owner. en-us Mon, 09 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218316 The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and confirmed the penalty imposed by the check-post authority on the owner of the goods. The Court emphasized that the penalty for possession or movement of goods in breach of the law was rightly imposed on the owner, who had the duty to provide necessary declarations. The Court clarified that the term "person in-charge of the goods" included the owner, contrary to the High Court's interpretation, thereby upholding the penalty on the owner. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 09 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218316