<?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>1995 (11) TMI 394 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158350</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 13-A(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could not be imposed on an out-of-State purchaser merely because the transporter failed to carry proper documents or produce the builty book. The authorities made no enquiry into whether the sale had been duly recorded by the selling dealer, and the petitioner was not shown to be carrying on business in Uttar Pradesh or otherwise liable to tax under the Act. Delay in producing documents was attributed to detention of the truck and the transporter&#039;s office timings, so the transporter&#039;s omission could not be fastened on the purchaser. The penalty orders were therefore quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Oct 2013 18:41:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=333024" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (11) TMI 394 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158350</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 13-A(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could not be imposed on an out-of-State purchaser merely because the transporter failed to carry proper documents or produce the builty book. The authorities made no enquiry into whether the sale had been duly recorded by the selling dealer, and the petitioner was not shown to be carrying on business in Uttar Pradesh or otherwise liable to tax under the Act. Delay in producing documents was attributed to detention of the truck and the transporter&#039;s office timings, so the transporter&#039;s omission could not be fastened on the purchaser. The penalty orders were therefore quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158350</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>