https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160632 Section 14-B(6)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act was treated as a valid anti-evasion measure within the State's competence under Entry 54 of List II, because detention of goods for non-production of documents at a check-post or information centre operated as a safeguard against tax evasion and included procedural protections. Section 14-B(7)(iii), however, which imposed a compulsory penalty equal to fifty per cent of the value of the goods merely for failure to produce documents, was held unconstitutional to that extent because it was inflexible, unrelated to any proved attempt to evade tax, and excessive. The challenge based on lack of prior Presidential sanction under Article 304(b) failed. en-us Fri, 22 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Dec 2013 12:22:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160632 Section 14-B(6)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act was treated as a valid anti-evasion measure within the State's competence under Entry 54 of List II, because detention of goods for non-production of documents at a check-post or information centre operated as a safeguard against tax evasion and included procedural protections. Section 14-B(7)(iii), however, which imposed a compulsory penalty equal to fifty per cent of the value of the goods merely for failure to produce documents, was held unconstitutional to that extent because it was inflexible, unrelated to any proved attempt to evade tax, and excessive. The challenge based on lack of prior Presidential sanction under Article 304(b) failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 22 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160632