<?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>1999 (5) TMI 586 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159737</link>
    <description>Where goods were supplied to the purchaser&#039;s place of business, the purchaser was treated only as a deemed importer and its statutory duty under section 28-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was limited to furnishing form XXXI to the consignor in duplicate. The obligation to carry the declaration with the consignment during transit rested on the consignor and the person in charge of the vehicle. If the consignor failed to accompany the goods with the form, the purchaser could not be penalised for that omission, especially where the goods remained the consignor&#039;s property at detention and there was no reliable basis to hold that the purchaser had not supplied the declaration. The penalty on the purchaser was therefore unsustainable and liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:55:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 586 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159737</link>
      <description>Where goods were supplied to the purchaser&#039;s place of business, the purchaser was treated only as a deemed importer and its statutory duty under section 28-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was limited to furnishing form XXXI to the consignor in duplicate. The obligation to carry the declaration with the consignment during transit rested on the consignor and the person in charge of the vehicle. If the consignor failed to accompany the goods with the form, the purchaser could not be penalised for that omission, especially where the goods remained the consignor&#039;s property at detention and there was no reliable basis to hold that the purchaser had not supplied the declaration. The penalty on the purchaser was therefore unsustainable and liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159737</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>