<?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 899 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255700</link>
    <description>Carrying goods beyond the destination shown in transport documents, without authorisation for the onward movement, breached the check-post requirements under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The statutory scheme under section 53 requires the person in charge of the vehicle to carry prescribed documents and comply with reporting obligations at the relevant check-posts to prevent tax evasion. Once the vehicle moved beyond the stated destination without supporting documents, the contravention was complete. Later return of the goods, unloading at the original destination, and issuance of C forms did not cure the earlier breach, and a plea of bona fide mistake was rejected on the facts. The penalty was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=374509" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 899 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255700</link>
      <description>Carrying goods beyond the destination shown in transport documents, without authorisation for the onward movement, breached the check-post requirements under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The statutory scheme under section 53 requires the person in charge of the vehicle to carry prescribed documents and comply with reporting obligations at the relevant check-posts to prevent tax evasion. Once the vehicle moved beyond the stated destination without supporting documents, the contravention was complete. Later return of the goods, unloading at the original destination, and issuance of C forms did not cure the earlier breach, and a plea of bona fide mistake was rejected on the facts. The penalty was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>