<?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 (3) TMI 504 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158716</link>
    <description>Transported notified goods may be seized at a check-post under section 70(1) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 when the prescribed permit is not produced within the statutory period. The text states that no separate prior show-cause notice or further opportunity is required before seizure where the statute itself allows detention and subsequent seizure after the allotted time. It also explains that witness requirements under Rule 207(1) and section 100(4) and (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not rigidly apply to an open check-post interception, and their absence does not vitiate the seizure without prejudice. The article further notes that such action does not infringe article 301 when taken under the taxing statute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:55:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 504 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158716</link>
      <description>Transported notified goods may be seized at a check-post under section 70(1) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 when the prescribed permit is not produced within the statutory period. The text states that no separate prior show-cause notice or further opportunity is required before seizure where the statute itself allows detention and subsequent seizure after the allotted time. It also explains that witness requirements under Rule 207(1) and section 100(4) and (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not rigidly apply to an open check-post interception, and their absence does not vitiate the seizure without prejudice. The article further notes that such action does not infringe article 301 when taken under the taxing statute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158716</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>