<?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>2001 (5) TMI 932 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160964</link>
    <description>A seizure of goods under sales tax movement provisions is valid only when the authority has pre-seizure material sufficient to form a bona fide, reasonable belief of statutory contravention. Mere telephonic information about the consignor&#039;s registration status, without physical verification or evidence that the transport documents were false or incorrect, was insufficient; the seizure was therefore invalid. Later-acquired information could not retrospectively supply the missing statutory basis, and post-seizure corroboration could not cure the defect in the original action. The impugned seizure order was held unsustainable in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2013 16:31:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340989" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 932 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160964</link>
      <description>A seizure of goods under sales tax movement provisions is valid only when the authority has pre-seizure material sufficient to form a bona fide, reasonable belief of statutory contravention. Mere telephonic information about the consignor&#039;s registration status, without physical verification or evidence that the transport documents were false or incorrect, was insufficient; the seizure was therefore invalid. Later-acquired information could not retrospectively supply the missing statutory basis, and post-seizure corroboration could not cure the defect in the original action. The impugned seizure order was held unsustainable in law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160964</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>