https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161308 Form No. S.T. 18A was intended to identify imported goods and acknowledge tax liability on sale, but its absence during transport did not by itself justify a penal inference where the goods were supported by bilty, invoice, consignment transfer and delivery challan. The amended Rule 62-A had abolished check-posts for the relevant period, creating uncertainty about carriage of the form. In that setting, the presence of other import documents prevented an inference of dishonest intention or deliberate tax evasion, and mere non-carrying of Form No. S.T. 18A was not treated as a penal violation. en-us Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:46:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161308 Form No. S.T. 18A was intended to identify imported goods and acknowledge tax liability on sale, but its absence during transport did not by itself justify a penal inference where the goods were supported by bilty, invoice, consignment transfer and delivery challan. The amended Rule 62-A had abolished check-posts for the relevant period, creating uncertainty about carriage of the form. In that setting, the presence of other import documents prevented an inference of dishonest intention or deliberate tax evasion, and mere non-carrying of Form No. S.T. 18A was not treated as a penal violation. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161308