https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163717 Departmental circulars did not invalidate seizure, assessment, or penalty proceedings because the earlier circular required FIR registration in tax-evasion cases and did not bar continuation of proceedings, while later circulars could not govern past action. On penalty for alleged violation of transport requirements, the department had to affirmatively prove the statutory breach and failed to do so, so penalty was not justified. For turnover assessment, the dealer failed to prove that the goods were tax-paid local purchases, and the missing goods found on survey after release supported an inference of sale, so assessment of turnover was sustained. The decision distinguishes the burden of proof for penalty from that for sales tax assessment. en-us Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Dec 2014 12:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163717 Departmental circulars did not invalidate seizure, assessment, or penalty proceedings because the earlier circular required FIR registration in tax-evasion cases and did not bar continuation of proceedings, while later circulars could not govern past action. On penalty for alleged violation of transport requirements, the department had to affirmatively prove the statutory breach and failed to do so, so penalty was not justified. For turnover assessment, the dealer failed to prove that the goods were tax-paid local purchases, and the missing goods found on survey after release supported an inference of sale, so assessment of turnover was sustained. The decision distinguishes the burden of proof for penalty from that for sales tax assessment. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163717