<?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>2014 (3) TMI 548 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245095</link>
    <description>Penalty for a defective import declaration under the U.P. Value Added Tax framework was sustainable only where the statutory contravention was coupled with an intention to evade tax. A blank Column 6 in Form 38 did not satisfy the requirement that the declaration form be duly completed and signed with prescribed documents, and this amounted to a breach of the import documentation rules. On the facts accepted by the authorities, repeated omission of Column 6 supported an inference that the form could be reused for successive imports, indicating evasion. The penalty was therefore upheld on concurrent findings, with no legal error shown to displace them.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348968" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 548 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245095</link>
      <description>Penalty for a defective import declaration under the U.P. Value Added Tax framework was sustainable only where the statutory contravention was coupled with an intention to evade tax. A blank Column 6 in Form 38 did not satisfy the requirement that the declaration form be duly completed and signed with prescribed documents, and this amounted to a breach of the import documentation rules. On the facts accepted by the authorities, repeated omission of Column 6 supported an inference that the form could be reused for successive imports, indicating evasion. The penalty was therefore upheld on concurrent findings, with no legal error shown to displace them.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>