<?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>2014 (7) TMI 276 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249239</link>
    <description>Transit detention provisions permit detention on reasonable suspicion and penalty where inquiry establishes an attempt to evade tax. The consignor&#039;s lack of authority to deal in excavators, failure to disclose the purchase until interception, and post-detention accounting supported the finding of evasion. Ownership for penalty purposes depends on the sale contract, parties&#039; conduct and surrounding circumstances under the Sale of Goods Act. Advance payment, delivery to the carrier, financing arrangements and transport records supported treating the consignee as owner, while invoice omissions, an unexplained cash component and delayed accounting indicated collusion. Penalty could therefore extend to the consignee, subject to reduction in quantum; bank finance did not confer ownership overriding statutory detention.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2014 11:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=359025" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 276 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249239</link>
      <description>Transit detention provisions permit detention on reasonable suspicion and penalty where inquiry establishes an attempt to evade tax. The consignor&#039;s lack of authority to deal in excavators, failure to disclose the purchase until interception, and post-detention accounting supported the finding of evasion. Ownership for penalty purposes depends on the sale contract, parties&#039; conduct and surrounding circumstances under the Sale of Goods Act. Advance payment, delivery to the carrier, financing arrangements and transport records supported treating the consignee as owner, while invoice omissions, an unexplained cash component and delayed accounting indicated collusion. Penalty could therefore extend to the consignee, subject to reduction in quantum; bank finance did not confer ownership overriding statutory detention.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249239</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>