<?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 (4) TMI 1306 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174016</link>
    <description>Goods in transit through a State cannot be seized before the declared exit time merely on suspicion when the prescribed transit declaration form and supporting documents are available and there is no positive finding of loading or unloading within the State. The statutory scheme authorises seizure only where goods are unaccounted for, lack the required documents, or involve the prescribed undervaluation threshold; absent such non-compliance, a presumption of local sale does not arise. Where the seizure is unsupported by statutory authority, the illegality is jurisdictional, and revisional interference is permissible to set aside the unlawful orders. The seizure and consequential orders were therefore invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2017 11:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 1306 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174016</link>
      <description>Goods in transit through a State cannot be seized before the declared exit time merely on suspicion when the prescribed transit declaration form and supporting documents are available and there is no positive finding of loading or unloading within the State. The statutory scheme authorises seizure only where goods are unaccounted for, lack the required documents, or involve the prescribed undervaluation threshold; absent such non-compliance, a presumption of local sale does not arise. Where the seizure is unsupported by statutory authority, the illegality is jurisdictional, and revisional interference is permissible to set aside the unlawful orders. The seizure and consequential orders were therefore invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174016</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>