<?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>2007 (12) TMI 433 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163351</link>
    <description>Under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the saving clause preserved prior liabilities and proceedings while the appellate scheme under the later Act governed Tribunal orders passed after its commencement. On that basis, a High Court appeal under section 68 was treated as maintainable even though the proceedings arose under the repealed Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, displacing the earlier reference remedy. The text also notes that penalty for carrying goods with improper documents and suppressing sales was sustained where the dealer admitted the transaction and sought only leniency in quantum, because no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal&#039;s factual findings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350675" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (12) TMI 433 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163351</link>
      <description>Under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the saving clause preserved prior liabilities and proceedings while the appellate scheme under the later Act governed Tribunal orders passed after its commencement. On that basis, a High Court appeal under section 68 was treated as maintainable even though the proceedings arose under the repealed Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, displacing the earlier reference remedy. The text also notes that penalty for carrying goods with improper documents and suppressing sales was sustained where the dealer admitted the transaction and sought only leniency in quantum, because no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal&#039;s factual findings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163351</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>