<?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 (7) TMI 926 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165110</link>
    <description>Section 28B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act raises a presumption of intra-State sale only where a vehicle in transit fails to obtain the transit authorisation at the first check-post or fails to surrender it at the exit check-post. An incorrect description in the accompanying papers, or mere doubt about the consignor, does not by itself trigger that presumption. Here, the transit pass was issued after verification and was surrendered in time at the exit check-post, with no finding that the goods were unloaded in Uttar Pradesh, that they did not tally with the documents, or that there was any intent to evade tax. On those facts, penalty under section 13A(4) was not attracted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2014 11:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355338" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 926 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165110</link>
      <description>Section 28B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act raises a presumption of intra-State sale only where a vehicle in transit fails to obtain the transit authorisation at the first check-post or fails to surrender it at the exit check-post. An incorrect description in the accompanying papers, or mere doubt about the consignor, does not by itself trigger that presumption. Here, the transit pass was issued after verification and was surrendered in time at the exit check-post, with no finding that the goods were unloaded in Uttar Pradesh, that they did not tally with the documents, or that there was any intent to evade tax. On those facts, penalty under section 13A(4) was not attracted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165110</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>