<?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 693 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251667</link>
    <description>Mandatory transit documents under Section 28-A(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act had to be carried and produced at the time of interception. Because the goods vehicle driver produced no required documents before the Check Post Officer, and only later relied on a photocopy of Form No. II before the appellate authority, the earlier non-compliance was not cured. The Tribunal&#039;s reliance on an earlier decision was found inapplicable on these facts, as the assessee had failed to meet the statutory document requirement at the relevant stage. The penalty under Section 28-A(4) was therefore held sustainable, and the Tribunal&#039;s order setting it aside was found unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365680" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 693 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251667</link>
      <description>Mandatory transit documents under Section 28-A(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act had to be carried and produced at the time of interception. Because the goods vehicle driver produced no required documents before the Check Post Officer, and only later relied on a photocopy of Form No. II before the appellate authority, the earlier non-compliance was not cured. The Tribunal&#039;s reliance on an earlier decision was found inapplicable on these facts, as the assessee had failed to meet the statutory document requirement at the relevant stage. The penalty under Section 28-A(4) was therefore held sustainable, and the Tribunal&#039;s order setting it aside was found unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251667</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>