<?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>1997 (7) TMI 634 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159394</link>
    <description>Goods merely transiting through Rajasthan were held subject to section 22A check-post and inspection requirements, and the person in charge had to carry and produce the prescribed documents; non-compliance could justify penalty under section 22A(7) as a regulatory measure aimed at preventing tax evasion. The majority also held that this transit inspection regime did not place such a direct or immediate restraint on trade, commerce and intercourse as to offend article 301 of the Constitution. The revision was therefore rejected and the penalty order maintained, although one member dissented on the ground that transit goods fell outside section 22A and were instead addressed by section 22B.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:50:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336642" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 634 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159394</link>
      <description>Goods merely transiting through Rajasthan were held subject to section 22A check-post and inspection requirements, and the person in charge had to carry and produce the prescribed documents; non-compliance could justify penalty under section 22A(7) as a regulatory measure aimed at preventing tax evasion. The majority also held that this transit inspection regime did not place such a direct or immediate restraint on trade, commerce and intercourse as to offend article 301 of the Constitution. The revision was therefore rejected and the penalty order maintained, although one member dissented on the ground that transit goods fell outside section 22A and were instead addressed by section 22B.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>