<?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 (12) TMI 4 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335359</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the penalty imposed under Sec. 78(5) for failure to produce declaration form ST-18-A during goods transportation, emphasizing the mandatory nature of Rule 53. The Court quashed lower authorities&#039; orders and affirmed the penalty, citing strict compliance with tax regulations and previous judgments. The judgment reinforced the liability of owners for tax evasion during transportation and the applicability of penalties without requiring proof of intent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2016 09:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450093" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 4 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335359</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the penalty imposed under Sec. 78(5) for failure to produce declaration form ST-18-A during goods transportation, emphasizing the mandatory nature of Rule 53. The Court quashed lower authorities&#039; orders and affirmed the penalty, citing strict compliance with tax regulations and previous judgments. The judgment reinforced the liability of owners for tax evasion during transportation and the applicability of penalties without requiring proof of intent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335359</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>