<?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>2015 (1) TMI 724 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255525</link>
    <description>In penalty proceedings under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, the Tribunal&#039;s view that a transporter had proved delivery of goods outside Uttar Pradesh was found unsustainable where the record showed major discrepancies in quantity, description and nature of goods, and the alleged consignors and purchasers were non-existent. The absence of Form-C copies and payment details, together with unreliable supporting documents, meant the burden of proving genuine inter-State movement was not discharged. Online Form-16 information from Uttarakhand, by itself, was insufficient to establish actual delivery outside the State, and the Tribunal&#039;s contrary finding was treated as perverse.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=374211" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 724 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255525</link>
      <description>In penalty proceedings under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, the Tribunal&#039;s view that a transporter had proved delivery of goods outside Uttar Pradesh was found unsustainable where the record showed major discrepancies in quantity, description and nature of goods, and the alleged consignors and purchasers were non-existent. The absence of Form-C copies and payment details, together with unreliable supporting documents, meant the burden of proving genuine inter-State movement was not discharged. Online Form-16 information from Uttarakhand, by itself, was insufficient to establish actual delivery outside the State, and the Tribunal&#039;s contrary finding was treated as perverse.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255525</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>