<?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>2010 (3) TMI 1013 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164482</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 is discussed in the context of non-production of form VAT-XXXVI during transport of goods from Punjab to Himachal Pradesh. The article notes that the detention arose after the vehicles did not report at the ICC and an escape route was used, while the assessee also failed to produce supporting documents despite opportunities. It further states that the claimed consignment or stock-transfer character did not prevent penalty where the authorities treated the documents and surrounding facts as indicating tax evasion and procedural non-compliance. The discussion emphasizes that genuine documentation and compliance with barrier procedures are central to avoiding penal consequences.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2014 13:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353923" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 1013 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164482</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 is discussed in the context of non-production of form VAT-XXXVI during transport of goods from Punjab to Himachal Pradesh. The article notes that the detention arose after the vehicles did not report at the ICC and an escape route was used, while the assessee also failed to produce supporting documents despite opportunities. It further states that the claimed consignment or stock-transfer character did not prevent penalty where the authorities treated the documents and surrounding facts as indicating tax evasion and procedural non-compliance. The discussion emphasizes that genuine documentation and compliance with barrier procedures are central to avoiding penal consequences.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164482</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>