<?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>1998 (1) TMI 509 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160724</link>
    <description>Non-production of the prescribed documents and declaration at the check-post or on demand completed the contravention under section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, because section 22A(3) required the person in charge of the vehicle to carry and produce them at that stage. Rules 62-A and 63 governed seizure, release, notice, and inquiry, but did not create any substantive right to cure the default by later production. Subsequent filing of reliable documents within the notice period did not extinguish the completed offence. The view that no offence was made out was rejected, and penalty liability was affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:20:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340450" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 509 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160724</link>
      <description>Non-production of the prescribed documents and declaration at the check-post or on demand completed the contravention under section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, because section 22A(3) required the person in charge of the vehicle to carry and produce them at that stage. Rules 62-A and 63 governed seizure, release, notice, and inquiry, but did not create any substantive right to cure the default by later production. Subsequent filing of reliable documents within the notice period did not extinguish the completed offence. The view that no offence was made out was rejected, and penalty liability was affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>