<?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>2011 (3) TMI 1513 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165367</link>
    <description>Goods used in generation or distribution of electricity or other power fall within the rule 53 exception to the declaration requirement for notified electrical goods. Electrical motors, control panels and V-belts were treated as power-distribution goods rather than ordinary notified electrical appliances, so penalty for transit-document non-compliance was not exigible. Even if form ST-18A were required, supporting transport records and a request to rectify the declaration meant that a merely clerical deficiency could not justify penalty without a meaningful opportunity to cure it. The appellate orders setting aside the penalty were sustained and the revision petition failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=358589" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 1513 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165367</link>
      <description>Goods used in generation or distribution of electricity or other power fall within the rule 53 exception to the declaration requirement for notified electrical goods. Electrical motors, control panels and V-belts were treated as power-distribution goods rather than ordinary notified electrical appliances, so penalty for transit-document non-compliance was not exigible. Even if form ST-18A were required, supporting transport records and a request to rectify the declaration meant that a merely clerical deficiency could not justify penalty without a meaningful opportunity to cure it. The appellate orders setting aside the penalty were sustained and the revision petition failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165367</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>