<?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>2016 (3) TMI 767 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325583</link>
    <description>Goods intercepted in transit without the requisite bills or prescribed declaration may justify detention and penalty where the authorities have recorded reasons to suspect evasion and have followed the statutory detention, hearing and enquiry procedure. The court found that neither the driver nor the owner produced credible material to show lawful transport or tax payment, and self-serving documents were insufficient to displace the findings of the statutory authorities. A new factual plea not raised before the lower authorities was not entertained. The penalty was therefore sustained and no writ interference was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:36:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421109" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 767 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325583</link>
      <description>Goods intercepted in transit without the requisite bills or prescribed declaration may justify detention and penalty where the authorities have recorded reasons to suspect evasion and have followed the statutory detention, hearing and enquiry procedure. The court found that neither the driver nor the owner produced credible material to show lawful transport or tax payment, and self-serving documents were insufficient to displace the findings of the statutory authorities. A new factual plea not raised before the lower authorities was not entertained. The penalty was therefore sustained and no writ interference was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325583</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>