https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164645 A registered owner could avoid liability under section 28B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act only by proving with cogent evidence that the vehicle was actually given on hire to a transport company. The authorities found that the applicant failed to prove any genuine hiring arrangement, and the uncancelled forms 34, together with carriage of goods within Uttar Pradesh, supported the statutory presumption that the goods had been disposed of or sold in the State. The finding that the applicant remained involved in the transportation was treated as a factual conclusion based on evidence and not shown to be arbitrary or perverse, so the applicant remained liable for trade tax and sales tax dues. en-us Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Dec 2014 17:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164645 A registered owner could avoid liability under section 28B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act only by proving with cogent evidence that the vehicle was actually given on hire to a transport company. The authorities found that the applicant failed to prove any genuine hiring arrangement, and the uncancelled forms 34, together with carriage of goods within Uttar Pradesh, supported the statutory presumption that the goods had been disposed of or sold in the State. The finding that the applicant remained involved in the transportation was treated as a factual conclusion based on evidence and not shown to be arbitrary or perverse, so the applicant remained liable for trade tax and sales tax dues. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164645