https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166298 The court ruled in favor of the consignor, holding that no penalty could be imposed under section 78(5) of the Act of 1994. It was determined that the consignor had legitimately supplied goods to government departments without tax evasion intent, and the failure to provide the required ST-18A form by the consignee did not warrant penalizing the consignor. The court upheld the Rajasthan Tax Board's decision, emphasizing the consignee's responsibility to furnish necessary documentation and highlighting the significance of complying with statutory requirements in goods transportation, particularly when dealing with government entities. en-us Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:07:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166298 The court ruled in favor of the consignor, holding that no penalty could be imposed under section 78(5) of the Act of 1994. It was determined that the consignor had legitimately supplied goods to government departments without tax evasion intent, and the failure to provide the required ST-18A form by the consignee did not warrant penalizing the consignor. The court upheld the Rajasthan Tax Board's decision, emphasizing the consignee's responsibility to furnish necessary documentation and highlighting the significance of complying with statutory requirements in goods transportation, particularly when dealing with government entities. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166298