https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172063 For goods moved under stock transfer before 20 March 2000, the declaration form requirement was not mandatory, so penalty could not be imposed merely because Form ST-18-A was incomplete. The Rajasthan High Court noted that the intercepted goods were carried on stock transfer on 8 August 1995, and in light of the 20 March 2000 notification and the earlier ruling on the same point, the incomplete declaration did not attract liability under section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The appellate authorities were therefore justified in deleting the penalty, and that deletion was upheld. en-us Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:29:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172063 For goods moved under stock transfer before 20 March 2000, the declaration form requirement was not mandatory, so penalty could not be imposed merely because Form ST-18-A was incomplete. The Rajasthan High Court noted that the intercepted goods were carried on stock transfer on 8 August 1995, and in light of the 20 March 2000 notification and the earlier ruling on the same point, the incomplete declaration did not attract liability under section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The appellate authorities were therefore justified in deleting the penalty, and that deletion was upheld. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172063