<?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>2004 (11) TMI 546 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163365</link>
    <description>Inter-State transit goods may be detained under a separate acquisition provision where the prescribed authority has reason to believe that the sale price is below fair market value and tax evasion is suspected. The exclusion of inter-State sales from tax under the State Act does not bar action under that provision, which expressly extends to goods in transit. On the facts, the mismatch between invoice value and prevailing market value justified summary verification and proceedings. Relief, however, was confined to the quantity specifically covered by the petitioner&#039;s own quotation, namely 760 laminated sheets, and not the larger quantity alleged by the department.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2014 14:43:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350689" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 546 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163365</link>
      <description>Inter-State transit goods may be detained under a separate acquisition provision where the prescribed authority has reason to believe that the sale price is below fair market value and tax evasion is suspected. The exclusion of inter-State sales from tax under the State Act does not bar action under that provision, which expressly extends to goods in transit. On the facts, the mismatch between invoice value and prevailing market value justified summary verification and proceedings. Relief, however, was confined to the quantity specifically covered by the petitioner&#039;s own quotation, namely 760 laminated sheets, and not the larger quantity alleged by the department.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163365</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>