<?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 (9) TMI 139 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251113</link>
    <description>Goods ostensibly in inter-State transit may still be seized and confiscated under section 28(6) where surrounding circumstances indicate clandestine local sales and the goods are found in a transporter&#039;s godown or other place of business. The Court held that the provision is not limited to a registered dealer&#039;s premises and that the wide definition of dealer covers such conduct. It further held that the statutory presumption under section 29B was not rebutted because the owners failed to prove actual movement outside the State, and that notice and opportunity had been afforded. The confiscation orders were therefore restored and the Tribunal&#039;s contrary view was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2014 17:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=364517" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 139 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251113</link>
      <description>Goods ostensibly in inter-State transit may still be seized and confiscated under section 28(6) where surrounding circumstances indicate clandestine local sales and the goods are found in a transporter&#039;s godown or other place of business. The Court held that the provision is not limited to a registered dealer&#039;s premises and that the wide definition of dealer covers such conduct. It further held that the statutory presumption under section 29B was not rebutted because the owners failed to prove actual movement outside the State, and that notice and opportunity had been afforded. The confiscation orders were therefore restored and the Tribunal&#039;s contrary view was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251113</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>