<?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 (9) TMI 916 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168037</link>
    <description>A city booking agency operating under railway arrangements was treated as an out-agency of the railway because the railway manual, agency agreement and administrative control showed it performed railway functions; goods in its custody were therefore regarded as protected by the railway custody scheme for trade tax purposes. In transit disputes, the authorities were expected to verify railway records and the contractual or manual framework before drawing an adverse inference or proceeding with seizure or penalty. Where assessment or penalty proceedings had already begun, the proper course was to pursue the statutory remedy and obtain a speaking order, with interim protection maintained where directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 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=373236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 916 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168037</link>
      <description>A city booking agency operating under railway arrangements was treated as an out-agency of the railway because the railway manual, agency agreement and administrative control showed it performed railway functions; goods in its custody were therefore regarded as protected by the railway custody scheme for trade tax purposes. In transit disputes, the authorities were expected to verify railway records and the contractual or manual framework before drawing an adverse inference or proceeding with seizure or penalty. Where assessment or penalty proceedings had already begun, the proper course was to pursue the statutory remedy and obtain a speaking order, with interim protection maintained where directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168037</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>