<?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>2009 (1) TMI 788 - CENTRAL SALES TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163770</link>
    <description>Branch movements were treated as inter-State sales where the surrounding evidence, including endorsements, branch requisitions and confirmed arrangements, showed a prior contract and direct nexus between movement of goods and delivery to buyers in other States. The authority therefore sustained tax only on the proved inter-State turnover and required recomputation for the balance, which could not be mechanically classified as inter-State sales. Penalty was set aside because the entire turnover had been disclosed in the returns and documents, a wrong claim of stock transfer did not amount to wilful non-disclosure, and the ingredients of the applicable penalty provision were not satisfied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2019 11:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351749" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 788 - CENTRAL SALES TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163770</link>
      <description>Branch movements were treated as inter-State sales where the surrounding evidence, including endorsements, branch requisitions and confirmed arrangements, showed a prior contract and direct nexus between movement of goods and delivery to buyers in other States. The authority therefore sustained tax only on the proved inter-State turnover and required recomputation for the balance, which could not be mechanically classified as inter-State sales. Penalty was set aside because the entire turnover had been disclosed in the returns and documents, a wrong claim of stock transfer did not amount to wilful non-disclosure, and the ingredients of the applicable penalty provision were not satisfied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163770</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>