https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248179 The Karnataka HC treated the notification dated 08.08.2008 as controlling the transport requirement for non-ferrous metal and held that Form VAT-505 had to accompany the goods even when the movement was not for sale. It rejected the argument that Form VAT-515 was sufficient, noting that both forms were linked to Rule 157(1)(a) but the notification specifically governed the prescribed document for transport. The Court also stated that penalty under Section 53(12)(a) was attracted where no sufficient cause was shown for non-production of the required form at interception, and the assessee's acceptance of a reduced penalty supported the levy. en-us Thu, 20 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jun 2014 18:38:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248179 The Karnataka HC treated the notification dated 08.08.2008 as controlling the transport requirement for non-ferrous metal and held that Form VAT-505 had to accompany the goods even when the movement was not for sale. It rejected the argument that Form VAT-515 was sufficient, noting that both forms were linked to Rule 157(1)(a) but the notification specifically governed the prescribed document for transport. The Court also stated that penalty under Section 53(12)(a) was attracted where no sufficient cause was shown for non-production of the required form at interception, and the assessee's acceptance of a reduced penalty supported the levy. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 20 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248179