<?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>2013 (12) TMI 921 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241256</link>
    <description>Goods in transit were described as not liable to seizure solely because they were not accompanied by a Transit Declaration Form. The text explains that the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and the Rules permit seizure only on specified grounds such as absence of proper documents, false or incomplete documents, undervaluation, or lack of bona fide dealer traceability. The Transit Declaration Form is treated as a transit document under Section 52 and Rule 58, and its absence creates only a rebuttable presumption that the goods were intended for sale within the State. A circular could not expand the statutory grounds for seizure, and where the accompanying documents were otherwise in order, seizure on that basis was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339945" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 921 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241256</link>
      <description>Goods in transit were described as not liable to seizure solely because they were not accompanied by a Transit Declaration Form. The text explains that the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and the Rules permit seizure only on specified grounds such as absence of proper documents, false or incomplete documents, undervaluation, or lack of bona fide dealer traceability. The Transit Declaration Form is treated as a transit document under Section 52 and Rule 58, and its absence creates only a rebuttable presumption that the goods were intended for sale within the State. A circular could not expand the statutory grounds for seizure, and where the accompanying documents were otherwise in order, seizure on that basis was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241256</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>