https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158068 Mandatory safeguards under rule 19 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 and section 31 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 governed seizure and penalty for alleged contravention in transit. The notice was defective because it did not state the gist of the accusation and allowed only one day to respond, contrary to the requirement of notice and hearing within up to 15 days. The statutory scheme also required objective satisfaction that the transportation contravened section 31(2a) in a manner likely to deprive the State of tax, and a further finding of likely tax evasion before penalty could be imposed. As those requirements were not met, the seizure and penalty orders were quashed and release of the goods on security was directed, leaving fresh lawful proceedings open. en-us Tue, 16 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Oct 2013 18:31:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158068 Mandatory safeguards under rule 19 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 and section 31 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 governed seizure and penalty for alleged contravention in transit. The notice was defective because it did not state the gist of the accusation and allowed only one day to respond, contrary to the requirement of notice and hearing within up to 15 days. The statutory scheme also required objective satisfaction that the transportation contravened section 31(2a) in a manner likely to deprive the State of tax, and a further finding of likely tax evasion before penalty could be imposed. As those requirements were not met, the seizure and penalty orders were quashed and release of the goods on security was directed, leaving fresh lawful proceedings open. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 16 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158068