<?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>2007 (1) TMI 534 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163812</link>
    <description>Penalty under the trade tax law was treated as sustainable where intercepted goods were supported only by doubtful challans, no bill was produced at inspection, and the dealer failed to furnish the relevant books of account or challan book for verification. Discrepancies in the challans, including registration and document particulars, together with the dealer&#039;s admitted printing mistakes and the later production of differing carbon copies, justified an inference that the goods had not been entered in the accounts. The Tribunal erred in treating the discrepancies as minor without examining the documents. The revision succeeded, the Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded only for reconsideration of penalty quantum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2014 10:19:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351791" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (1) TMI 534 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163812</link>
      <description>Penalty under the trade tax law was treated as sustainable where intercepted goods were supported only by doubtful challans, no bill was produced at inspection, and the dealer failed to furnish the relevant books of account or challan book for verification. Discrepancies in the challans, including registration and document particulars, together with the dealer&#039;s admitted printing mistakes and the later production of differing carbon copies, justified an inference that the goods had not been entered in the accounts. The Tribunal erred in treating the discrepancies as minor without examining the documents. The revision succeeded, the Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded only for reconsideration of penalty quantum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163812</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>