<?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>2012 (1) TMI 143 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167887</link>
    <description>Penalty under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act was sustained where goods moving from Delhi to Jammu were found at Amritsar after an unexplained delay and without the transit slip required on entry into Punjab. The Court accepted the revenue&#039;s inference of attempted tax evasion because the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the diversion, and the record did not conclusively show that the detained goods were the same goods covered by the invoice. Concurrent findings of the assessing authority, appellate authority, and Tribunal were not shown to be perverse or illegal, and the absence of the transit slip reinforced the statutory presumption against the assessee. The penalty was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2015 12:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373016" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (1) TMI 143 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167887</link>
      <description>Penalty under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act was sustained where goods moving from Delhi to Jammu were found at Amritsar after an unexplained delay and without the transit slip required on entry into Punjab. The Court accepted the revenue&#039;s inference of attempted tax evasion because the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the diversion, and the record did not conclusively show that the detained goods were the same goods covered by the invoice. Concurrent findings of the assessing authority, appellate authority, and Tribunal were not shown to be perverse or illegal, and the absence of the transit slip reinforced the statutory presumption against the assessee. The penalty was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167887</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>