<?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 601 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168006</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 28A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act cannot be sustained where goods in transit are accompanied by the prescribed documents and the dispute is only about discrepancies between those documents. The check-post authority&#039;s enquiry is confined to whether valid documents required by law accompany the vehicle; it cannot levy penalty merely because invoice, airway bill, bills of entry, or related papers do not fully match, if their existence and validity are not in doubt. On that basis, the appellate order setting aside the penalty was not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue, so revision under section 22A(1) was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 22:09:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373135" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (11) TMI 601 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168006</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 28A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act cannot be sustained where goods in transit are accompanied by the prescribed documents and the dispute is only about discrepancies between those documents. The check-post authority&#039;s enquiry is confined to whether valid documents required by law accompany the vehicle; it cannot levy penalty merely because invoice, airway bill, bills of entry, or related papers do not fully match, if their existence and validity are not in doubt. On that basis, the appellate order setting aside the penalty was not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue, so revision under section 22A(1) was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168006</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>