<?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>2003 (8) TMI 520 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162452</link>
    <description>Rule 211(4) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 applies only when no check-post exists in or around the relevant station, steamer station, airport or post office. Where a sales tax check-post was functioning in the vicinity, failure to produce the way-bill and obtain the required counter-signature at entry amounted to non-compliance with rule 211(1) and a breach of section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994; later production did not cure the defect. A challenge based on detention before expiry of 48 hours also failed, as the documents were not produced after detention and the seizure was not shown unlawful on that ground. The seizure and penalty proceedings were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:34:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347384" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 520 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162452</link>
      <description>Rule 211(4) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 applies only when no check-post exists in or around the relevant station, steamer station, airport or post office. Where a sales tax check-post was functioning in the vicinity, failure to produce the way-bill and obtain the required counter-signature at entry amounted to non-compliance with rule 211(1) and a breach of section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994; later production did not cure the defect. A challenge based on detention before expiry of 48 hours also failed, as the documents were not produced after detention and the seizure was not shown unlawful on that ground. The seizure and penalty proceedings were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>