<?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 (8) TMI 1098 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164575</link>
    <description>Where the Karnataka Sales Tax Act required original documents to accompany goods in transit, production of xerox copies did not satisfy the statutory mandate. The HC noted that a copy is not a substitute for the original, and later production of the original document did not cure the initial breach. Because the goods moved without the required documents, the statutory penalty was held to be justified and the writ challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2014 11:54:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1098 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164575</link>
      <description>Where the Karnataka Sales Tax Act required original documents to accompany goods in transit, production of xerox copies did not satisfy the statutory mandate. The HC noted that a copy is not a substitute for the original, and later production of the original document did not cure the initial breach. Because the goods moved without the required documents, the statutory penalty was held to be justified and the writ challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164575</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>