<?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 (11) TMI 845 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164532</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 13A(4) of the Trade Tax Act, 1948 was examined on survey facts showing large quantities of goods at an undeclared place, goods being loaded for transport, and failure to produce books of account at the premises. The explanation that the books were locked in an almirah and the proprietor had taken the keys was treated as unreliable. The authorities relied on the survey report, the statement recorded during survey, the absence of verifiable purchase entries, and the surrounding circumstances to infer that the goods were not duly accounted for. On those facts, the penalty was sustained as a lawful response to suspected evasion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353984" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 845 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164532</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 13A(4) of the Trade Tax Act, 1948 was examined on survey facts showing large quantities of goods at an undeclared place, goods being loaded for transport, and failure to produce books of account at the premises. The explanation that the books were locked in an almirah and the proprietor had taken the keys was treated as unreliable. The authorities relied on the survey report, the statement recorded during survey, the absence of verifiable purchase entries, and the surrounding circumstances to infer that the goods were not duly accounted for. On those facts, the penalty was sustained as a lawful response to suspected evasion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>