<?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 (9) TMI 529 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163672</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 13A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is attracted only where the authority, after hearing the dealer and considering the explanation, is satisfied that goods were wilfully omitted from the accounts, registers or other relevant documents. Here, the goods were accompanied by a bill at checking, and the stock register, bill book and purchase vouchers were produced in response to notice. The disputed entries also appeared in the books of account. Mere stamping of the bill number and the later binding of loose stock-register forms did not establish wilful omission from the books, so the penalty was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:14:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351491" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 529 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163672</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 13A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is attracted only where the authority, after hearing the dealer and considering the explanation, is satisfied that goods were wilfully omitted from the accounts, registers or other relevant documents. Here, the goods were accompanied by a bill at checking, and the stock register, bill book and purchase vouchers were produced in response to notice. The disputed entries also appeared in the books of account. Mere stamping of the bill number and the later binding of loose stock-register forms did not establish wilful omission from the books, so the penalty was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163672</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>