<?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 (9) TMI 359 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158938</link>
    <description>Section 30C of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was treated as a special provision enabling seizure and confiscation where there is reasonable belief that goods are being smuggled. On the facts noted in the notice, the vehicle was intercepted with cashewnuts inconsistent with the declared goods, additional transport documents for other goods were found, and cash was recovered from the cabin. Those circumstances were considered sufficient to support the statutory action, and release of the goods and vehicle was not justified on the writ record. The Court declined interference under article 226, holding that a different release order on other facts did not affect this factual matrix.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:54:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (9) TMI 359 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158938</link>
      <description>Section 30C of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was treated as a special provision enabling seizure and confiscation where there is reasonable belief that goods are being smuggled. On the facts noted in the notice, the vehicle was intercepted with cashewnuts inconsistent with the declared goods, additional transport documents for other goods were found, and cash was recovered from the cabin. Those circumstances were considered sufficient to support the statutory action, and release of the goods and vehicle was not justified on the writ record. The Court declined interference under article 226, holding that a different release order on other facts did not affect this factual matrix.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158938</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>