<?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 (2) TMI 816 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161039</link>
    <description>Production of the prescribed way bill remained mandatory for movement of taxable goods under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act and Rules, and alleged ministerial assurance reported in newspapers could not override that statutory requirement. Newspaper reports were treated as hearsay and did not prove the claimed assurance, so no estoppel arose against the statute. The non-production of the way bill therefore constituted a material contravention and justified seizure and penalty. The challenge to the quantum of penalty also failed because no legally sustainable ground was shown for interference once the breach stood established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:26:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341239" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 816 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161039</link>
      <description>Production of the prescribed way bill remained mandatory for movement of taxable goods under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act and Rules, and alleged ministerial assurance reported in newspapers could not override that statutory requirement. Newspaper reports were treated as hearsay and did not prove the claimed assurance, so no estoppel arose against the statute. The non-production of the way bill therefore constituted a material contravention and justified seizure and penalty. The challenge to the quantum of penalty also failed because no legally sustainable ground was shown for interference once the breach stood established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>