<?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 (11) TMI 574 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166298</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was held not leviable where the statutory declaration form was required to be furnished by the consignee, a Government department, and the record disclosed no intent to evade tax. The omission to produce form ST-18A was attributable to the consignee department, so penal action against the assessee was unjustified. The Tax Board&#039;s view that this was only a technical breach not warranting penalty was affirmed, and the revision petition failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:07:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=369756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (11) TMI 574 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166298</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was held not leviable where the statutory declaration form was required to be furnished by the consignee, a Government department, and the record disclosed no intent to evade tax. The omission to produce form ST-18A was attributable to the consignee department, so penal action against the assessee was unjustified. The Tax Board&#039;s view that this was only a technical breach not warranting penalty was affirmed, and the revision petition failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>