<?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>1996 (10) TMI 438 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158700</link>
    <description>Goods in transit that are falsely described in the accompanying documents may attract penalty where the misdescription concerns the identity of the commodity itself, not merely its value. Here, tanker documents showed til oil, but physical verification and chemical testing indicated mustard oil adulterated with til oil. The misdescription was treated as a case of goods not covered by the prescribed transport documents under section 22A(7), because it facilitated an unfair tax advantage and suggested tax evasion. The article states that this was not a mere overvaluation dispute, and that penalty under the transit-control provision was therefore warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:07:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334591" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 438 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158700</link>
      <description>Goods in transit that are falsely described in the accompanying documents may attract penalty where the misdescription concerns the identity of the commodity itself, not merely its value. Here, tanker documents showed til oil, but physical verification and chemical testing indicated mustard oil adulterated with til oil. The misdescription was treated as a case of goods not covered by the prescribed transport documents under section 22A(7), because it facilitated an unfair tax advantage and suggested tax evasion. The article states that this was not a mere overvaluation dispute, and that penalty under the transit-control provision was therefore warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>