<?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>2010 (3) TMI 1022 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164827</link>
    <description>Non-production of a transit declaration at the exit check-post raises a rebuttable presumption that the goods did not leave the State and were sold locally. That presumption can be displaced by surrounding documents and explanations showing actual out-movement. Penalty may therefore be imposed for the procedural breach, but the authority must assess whether the evidence supports dispatch outside the State before fixing the quantum. A mechanical maximum penalty for every violation is not justified where the claim of delivery outside West Bengal is not wholly disproved. The penalty was upheld in principle, but reduced because the materials did not fully negate actual movement to Madhya Pradesh.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2014 19:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354780" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 1022 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164827</link>
      <description>Non-production of a transit declaration at the exit check-post raises a rebuttable presumption that the goods did not leave the State and were sold locally. That presumption can be displaced by surrounding documents and explanations showing actual out-movement. Penalty may therefore be imposed for the procedural breach, but the authority must assess whether the evidence supports dispatch outside the State before fixing the quantum. A mechanical maximum penalty for every violation is not justified where the claim of delivery outside West Bengal is not wholly disproved. The penalty was upheld in principle, but reduced because the materials did not fully negate actual movement to Madhya Pradesh.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164827</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>