<?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 (10) TMI 566 - Punjab and Haryana High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168049</link>
    <description>Penalty under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act was sustained on findings that the transport documents were not genuine and the goods had been sent outside Punjab with improper documents. The Tribunal nevertheless remanded the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration of the basis and extent of penalty, keeping the appellant&#039;s contentions open. The High Court stated that such remand was not barred by statute or precedent and that the earlier Supreme Court authority relied on by the appellant was distinguishable because it did not involve the same type of interference with a concluded factual finding. The remand was therefore upheld and no prejudice was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 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=373248" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (10) TMI 566 - Punjab and Haryana High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168049</link>
      <description>Penalty under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act was sustained on findings that the transport documents were not genuine and the goods had been sent outside Punjab with improper documents. The Tribunal nevertheless remanded the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration of the basis and extent of penalty, keeping the appellant&#039;s contentions open. The High Court stated that such remand was not barred by statute or precedent and that the earlier Supreme Court authority relied on by the appellant was distinguishable because it did not involve the same type of interference with a concluded factual finding. The remand was therefore upheld and no prejudice was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168049</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>