<?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 1150 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336505</link>
    <description>Where material existed to support seizure of goods during a tax inspection, the dealer&#039;s challenge to the stock position was left for assessment or penalty proceedings rather than treated as a basis to invalidate the seizure. The authority&#039;s security-demand order was therefore not interfered with, but the goods were ordered to be released against security equivalent to the tax involved, provided it was furnished other than in cash or bank guarantee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:14:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452647" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1150 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336505</link>
      <description>Where material existed to support seizure of goods during a tax inspection, the dealer&#039;s challenge to the stock position was left for assessment or penalty proceedings rather than treated as a basis to invalidate the seizure. The authority&#039;s security-demand order was therefore not interfered with, but the goods were ordered to be released against security equivalent to the tax involved, provided it was furnished other than in cash or bank guarantee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>