<?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>2006 (4) TMI 471 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162547</link>
    <description>Check-post and transit provisions under the Madhya Pradesh Vanijya Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 operate as anti-evasion machinery. Where goods in transit are intercepted without the prescribed declaration, invoice, bill or challan, the authority may invoke seizure, penalty and related consequences, subject to a rebuttable presumption of attempted tax evasion. The person concerned must produce material showing no evasion attempt; inconsistent explanations or failure to displace the presumption support the demand. On the facts described, the transporter lacked the required documents, the assessee did not rebut the presumption, and the tax and penalty orders were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Mar 2014 15:26:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347690" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 471 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162547</link>
      <description>Check-post and transit provisions under the Madhya Pradesh Vanijya Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 operate as anti-evasion machinery. Where goods in transit are intercepted without the prescribed declaration, invoice, bill or challan, the authority may invoke seizure, penalty and related consequences, subject to a rebuttable presumption of attempted tax evasion. The person concerned must produce material showing no evasion attempt; inconsistent explanations or failure to displace the presumption support the demand. On the facts described, the transporter lacked the required documents, the assessee did not rebut the presumption, and the tax and penalty orders were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162547</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>