<?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>2013 (5) TMI 917 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188382</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was held not leviable where the ST/18/A declaration form accompanied the goods with bills and vouchers, and all material particulars such as quality, weight, description, value, consignor, consignee, and transporter were filled in. The only defect was an incomplete date entry, which did not amount to absence of material particulars or indicate any forged or fabricated document. Guljag Industries was distinguished because it applied only where required particulars for movement of goods were left blank. On these facts, the deletion of penalty was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:12:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=449863" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 917 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188382</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was held not leviable where the ST/18/A declaration form accompanied the goods with bills and vouchers, and all material particulars such as quality, weight, description, value, consignor, consignee, and transporter were filled in. The only defect was an incomplete date entry, which did not amount to absence of material particulars or indicate any forged or fabricated document. Guljag Industries was distinguished because it applied only where required particulars for movement of goods were left blank. On these facts, the deletion of penalty was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188382</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>