<?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 (9) TMI 614 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332353</link>
    <description>Provisional attachment under Section 45(1) of the VAT Act is an extraordinary protective measure and must be used cautiously on material showing real necessity to safeguard revenue. On the facts, the petitioner showed a prima facie case that bonded-warehouse sales may not attract VAT and that the import and sale document descriptions did not, on their face, establish a material mismatch in the goods. Because assessment remained pending, no final tax finding was made, but the existing bank guarantee substantially secured the revenue. Further attachment was therefore not warranted, and the petitioner was allowed to deal with the goods while keeping the guarantee alive until assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:31:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441197" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 614 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332353</link>
      <description>Provisional attachment under Section 45(1) of the VAT Act is an extraordinary protective measure and must be used cautiously on material showing real necessity to safeguard revenue. On the facts, the petitioner showed a prima facie case that bonded-warehouse sales may not attract VAT and that the import and sale document descriptions did not, on their face, establish a material mismatch in the goods. Because assessment remained pending, no final tax finding was made, but the existing bank guarantee substantially secured the revenue. Further attachment was therefore not warranted, and the petitioner was allowed to deal with the goods while keeping the guarantee alive until assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332353</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>