<?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 (11) TMI 892 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166380</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 78(10A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was held unsustainable where the vehicle carried all relevant documents at the time of checking, because the provision was treated as directory rather than mandatory and no intention to evade tax could be presumed on those facts. The matter was also considered covered by an earlier Division Bench view on the same provision, so the revision failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 11:56:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365568" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 892 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166380</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 78(10A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was held unsustainable where the vehicle carried all relevant documents at the time of checking, because the provision was treated as directory rather than mandatory and no intention to evade tax could be presumed on those facts. The matter was also considered covered by an earlier Division Bench view on the same provision, so the revision failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166380</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>