https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158696 Penalty under section 37(6) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 was treated as a deterrent against tax evasion in transit cases where proper supporting documents were not produced despite opportunity, and the authorities could infer attempted evasion from the surrounding circumstances. The driver or person in charge was not the proper person to be penalised where the owner's identity had been disclosed and the owner had appeared, because primary liability lay against the owner in that situation. A bare gate pass or an unsupported claim that the goods were only in transit for weighment was insufficient to displace the inference of evasion. en-us Wed, 02 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Nov 2013 16:53:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158696 Penalty under section 37(6) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 was treated as a deterrent against tax evasion in transit cases where proper supporting documents were not produced despite opportunity, and the authorities could infer attempted evasion from the surrounding circumstances. The driver or person in charge was not the proper person to be penalised where the owner's identity had been disclosed and the owner had appeared, because primary liability lay against the owner in that situation. A bare gate pass or an unsupported claim that the goods were only in transit for weighment was insufficient to displace the inference of evasion. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 02 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158696