<?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 (11) TMI 377 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157944</link>
    <description>Goods in transit must be supported by a bill of sale, delivery note or challan containing the particulars prescribed under section 14-B(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and rule 56-A; mere goods receipts proving movement are insufficient. The absence of corresponding transport documents, including sale bill and delivery note, showed non-compliance with the statutory requirements, and the contractual arrangement with SAIL did not displace those obligations. On that basis, transport without the requisite documents was treated as an attempt to evade tax, and the penalty under section 14-B(7) was upheld in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:49:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=320449" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (11) TMI 377 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157944</link>
      <description>Goods in transit must be supported by a bill of sale, delivery note or challan containing the particulars prescribed under section 14-B(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and rule 56-A; mere goods receipts proving movement are insufficient. The absence of corresponding transport documents, including sale bill and delivery note, showed non-compliance with the statutory requirements, and the contractual arrangement with SAIL did not displace those obligations. On that basis, transport without the requisite documents was treated as an attempt to evade tax, and the penalty under section 14-B(7) was upheld in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157944</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>