<?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>2008 (7) TMI 930 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164644</link>
    <description>Non-production of the tax invoice and prescribed transport documents at interception can justify detention and seizure of goods under the West Bengal VAT framework, and rule 107 read with section 76 was applied to treat the seizure as valid on the facts. Penalty for the same contravention is a distinct proceeding and cannot stand where the invoice was later produced, the challan discrepancy was only a prefix issue, the movement of goods was otherwise reflected in the VAT output register, and a fair and reasonable opportunity was not afforded before the penal order. The seizure was maintained, but the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2014 13:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354218" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 930 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164644</link>
      <description>Non-production of the tax invoice and prescribed transport documents at interception can justify detention and seizure of goods under the West Bengal VAT framework, and rule 107 read with section 76 was applied to treat the seizure as valid on the facts. Penalty for the same contravention is a distinct proceeding and cannot stand where the invoice was later produced, the challan discrepancy was only a prefix issue, the movement of goods was otherwise reflected in the VAT output register, and a fair and reasonable opportunity was not afforded before the penal order. The seizure was maintained, but the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164644</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>