<?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 (7) TMI 1080 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166547</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 77(8) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was held unsustainable where the alleged excess stock consisted of sales tax paid goods and no further tax liability arose. The provision permits penalty for unaccounted goods by reference to the tax leviable on such goods or thirty per cent of their value, whichever is less; if the goods are already tax paid, the tax component is nil and the statutory basis for computing penalty fails. The Court also observed that stock worked out by deducting gross profit rate from sale value is only a broad estimate and is less reliable than physical verification. The penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2014 13:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366463" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 1080 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166547</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 77(8) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was held unsustainable where the alleged excess stock consisted of sales tax paid goods and no further tax liability arose. The provision permits penalty for unaccounted goods by reference to the tax leviable on such goods or thirty per cent of their value, whichever is less; if the goods are already tax paid, the tax component is nil and the statutory basis for computing penalty fails. The Court also observed that stock worked out by deducting gross profit rate from sale value is only a broad estimate and is less reliable than physical verification. The penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166547</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>