<?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 (6) TMI 330 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158955</link>
    <description>Goods intercepted in transit were found not to have been transported pursuant to a genuine sale, because the sale bill was not issued at the time of transport, the delivery note did not credibly support the claimed transaction, and the explanation for the missing delivery note book was rejected. The authorities also relied on the fact that the entry in the books was made only after interception and that the surrounding circumstances did not make the alleged sale probable. The Tribunal further noted incomplete particulars in the delivery note and no convincing proof of a wholesale sale to a retailer. The finding was upheld, and no interference was called for.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:44:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335283" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (6) TMI 330 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158955</link>
      <description>Goods intercepted in transit were found not to have been transported pursuant to a genuine sale, because the sale bill was not issued at the time of transport, the delivery note did not credibly support the claimed transaction, and the explanation for the missing delivery note book was rejected. The authorities also relied on the fact that the entry in the books was made only after interception and that the surrounding circumstances did not make the alleged sale probable. The Tribunal further noted incomplete particulars in the delivery note and no convincing proof of a wholesale sale to a retailer. The finding was upheld, and no interference was called for.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158955</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>