https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166571 Penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was not justified because Form ST-18A, read with Section 81 and Rule 53, was construed as applying to movement of notified goods from outside the State, not to direct import from outside the country. The departmental circular dated 8.2.2001 supported that a registered importer carrying import and customs clearance documents was not required to enclose Form ST-18A, and the goods should not be detained merely for want of that form. The Court treated Guljag Industries as not controlling on the facts, and upheld the view that the other import documents accompanied the goods. en-us Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Oct 2014 12:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166571 Penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was not justified because Form ST-18A, read with Section 81 and Rule 53, was construed as applying to movement of notified goods from outside the State, not to direct import from outside the country. The departmental circular dated 8.2.2001 supported that a registered importer carrying import and customs clearance documents was not required to enclose Form ST-18A, and the goods should not be detained merely for want of that form. The Court treated Guljag Industries as not controlling on the facts, and upheld the view that the other import documents accompanied the goods. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166571