<?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 (11) TMI 578 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162463</link>
    <description>Seizure of goods and penalty were treated as unsustainable where the goods were supported by bill of lading, invoices, packing lists, bill of entry and consignment note, and the check-post had been informed with endorsement of documents. The tribunal noted that the seizure occurred in February 1999, while rule 215A(1)(d) requiring a way-bill for out-of-State dealers came into force only on 1 April 2000. On the scheme of rule 211, the necessary port/check-post documents had already been produced, so there was no legal obligation at the material time to obtain the later way-bill facility for movement through West Bengal. The seizure was therefore illegal, and the penalty and revisional orders, together with the bank guarantee, were ordered to be released.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2014 14:27:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 578 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162463</link>
      <description>Seizure of goods and penalty were treated as unsustainable where the goods were supported by bill of lading, invoices, packing lists, bill of entry and consignment note, and the check-post had been informed with endorsement of documents. The tribunal noted that the seizure occurred in February 1999, while rule 215A(1)(d) requiring a way-bill for out-of-State dealers came into force only on 1 April 2000. On the scheme of rule 211, the necessary port/check-post documents had already been produced, so there was no legal obligation at the material time to obtain the later way-bill facility for movement through West Bengal. The seizure was therefore illegal, and the penalty and revisional orders, together with the bank guarantee, were ordered to be released.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162463</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>