https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331762 Non-compliance with transit-document requirements under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 and Rule 53, where goods were carried with an incompletely filled ST-18A form, attracted penalty. The dealer could not avoid liability by arguing that the consignor left the form incomplete or that there was no intention to evade tax, because statutory violation of the prescribed declaration-form requirements was sufficient. The Supreme Court applied its earlier ruling on the same type of non-compliance, rejected the reasoning of the lower forums, upheld the penalty, and allowed the Revenue's appeal. en-us Mon, 04 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Sep 2016 14:07:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331762 Non-compliance with transit-document requirements under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 and Rule 53, where goods were carried with an incompletely filled ST-18A form, attracted penalty. The dealer could not avoid liability by arguing that the consignor left the form incomplete or that there was no intention to evade tax, because statutory violation of the prescribed declaration-form requirements was sufficient. The Supreme Court applied its earlier ruling on the same type of non-compliance, rejected the reasoning of the lower forums, upheld the penalty, and allowed the Revenue's appeal. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 04 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331762