<?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 (5) TMI 564 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163453</link>
    <description>Misuse of concessional declaration forms for purchases intended for manufacture of taxable goods attracted penalty under section 5A of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The Tribunal treated the governing principle for misuse of concessional declarations as applicable even though section 5A did not use the same wording as section 10 of the Central Sales Tax Act, because the essential test remained use of the goods for an unauthorised purpose. As the dealer failed to show direct use for the declared purpose, produced no satisfactory records, and could not displace the revenue&#039;s estimate of misused purchases, the penalty and its quantum were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:02:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350958" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 564 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163453</link>
      <description>Misuse of concessional declaration forms for purchases intended for manufacture of taxable goods attracted penalty under section 5A of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The Tribunal treated the governing principle for misuse of concessional declarations as applicable even though section 5A did not use the same wording as section 10 of the Central Sales Tax Act, because the essential test remained use of the goods for an unauthorised purpose. As the dealer failed to show direct use for the declared purpose, produced no satisfactory records, and could not displace the revenue&#039;s estimate of misused purchases, the penalty and its quantum were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163453</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>