<?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 (4) TMI 879 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164542</link>
    <description>Penalty for alleged tax evasion was found unsustainable where the transport documents and books of account were produced at interception and no discrepancy was detected. The Tribunal&#039;s factual findings showed that the sale invoice, goods receipt, computerized account books, purchase bill, stock statement and cash book were all available, and no enquiry was made from the consignee. The alleged statement of the driver alone was held insufficient to prove a bogus transaction or an attempt to evade tax. On those facts, a mere deviation from the route could not justify an inference of evasion, and no substantial question of law arose in appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 879 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164542</link>
      <description>Penalty for alleged tax evasion was found unsustainable where the transport documents and books of account were produced at interception and no discrepancy was detected. The Tribunal&#039;s factual findings showed that the sale invoice, goods receipt, computerized account books, purchase bill, stock statement and cash book were all available, and no enquiry was made from the consignee. The alleged statement of the driver alone was held insufficient to prove a bogus transaction or an attempt to evade tax. On those facts, a mere deviation from the route could not justify an inference of evasion, and no substantial question of law arose in appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164542</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>