<?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>2000 (1) TMI 944 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160110</link>
    <description>The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Rajasthan Tax Board, and restored the order of the assessing officer. The penalty imposed on the transporter was upheld, and the consignee&#039;s appeal was deemed invalid. The judgment reinforced the transporter&#039;s liability under Section 22A and clarified the limited rights of the consignee in such statutory proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2013 17:51:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338667" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 944 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160110</link>
      <description>The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Rajasthan Tax Board, and restored the order of the assessing officer. The penalty imposed on the transporter was upheld, and the consignee&#039;s appeal was deemed invalid. The judgment reinforced the transporter&#039;s liability under Section 22A and clarified the limited rights of the consignee in such statutory proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160110</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>