<?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>2005 (2) TMI 857 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187549</link>
    <description>Section 28-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and Rule 87 were treated as machinery provisions intended to verify bona fide transit of goods through the State and prevent local sale. The High Court held that seizure at the entry stage could not be justified on irrelevant or speculative grounds, such as the absence of an invoice note about transfer to another vehicle or the earlier use of a different vehicle, where the documents and surrounding material showed movement from Rajasthan to Uttaranchal and did not establish a different commodity. The inference of tax evasion based only on suspicion was unsustainable, so the refusal to issue the transit pass and the seizure were quashed and release of the goods was directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:04:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=445979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 857 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187549</link>
      <description>Section 28-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and Rule 87 were treated as machinery provisions intended to verify bona fide transit of goods through the State and prevent local sale. The High Court held that seizure at the entry stage could not be justified on irrelevant or speculative grounds, such as the absence of an invoice note about transfer to another vehicle or the earlier use of a different vehicle, where the documents and surrounding material showed movement from Rajasthan to Uttaranchal and did not establish a different commodity. The inference of tax evasion based only on suspicion was unsustainable, so the refusal to issue the transit pass and the seizure were quashed and release of the goods was directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187549</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>