<?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 (7) TMI 602 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162674</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 15(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was found unsustainable where the assessee carried the goods with valid transport forms and the record showed no intention to evade tax. Form No. 34 for transit through Uttar Pradesh and Form No. 31 for inward movement supported the transportation, and the invoice cuttings did not displace the concurrent finding of no violation of section 28-A. On those facts, no substantial question of law arose in revision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:08:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348417" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 602 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162674</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 15(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was found unsustainable where the assessee carried the goods with valid transport forms and the record showed no intention to evade tax. Form No. 34 for transit through Uttar Pradesh and Form No. 31 for inward movement supported the transportation, and the invoice cuttings did not displace the concurrent finding of no violation of section 28-A. On those facts, no substantial question of law arose in revision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162674</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>