<?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>2010 (8) TMI 1018 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181957</link>
    <description>Transit seizure under the U.P. VAT regime is unsustainable where the prescribed declaration, invoices, authorisation and other required documents accompany the goods and remain unimpeached. Section 48 permits seizure only when goods are unaccounted for in the ordinary course of business or there is reason to believe they are not traceable to a bona fide dealer, while Section 52 and Rule 54 regulate the documents required for movement through the State. Here, the documents were found in order, the affidavits and statements supported the declared movement, and no credible material showed manipulation, fictitious consignors, or loading from another place. The seizure was therefore not justified and the Tribunal&#039;s setting aside of the seizure order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:17:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=425926" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 1018 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181957</link>
      <description>Transit seizure under the U.P. VAT regime is unsustainable where the prescribed declaration, invoices, authorisation and other required documents accompany the goods and remain unimpeached. Section 48 permits seizure only when goods are unaccounted for in the ordinary course of business or there is reason to believe they are not traceable to a bona fide dealer, while Section 52 and Rule 54 regulate the documents required for movement through the State. Here, the documents were found in order, the affidavits and statements supported the declared movement, and no credible material showed manipulation, fictitious consignors, or loading from another place. The seizure was therefore not justified and the Tribunal&#039;s setting aside of the seizure order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181957</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>