<?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>2017 (1) TMI 273 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337193</link>
    <description>Penalty for alleged non-compliance in railway transport of goods was found unsustainable because the assessee had produced the railway receipt, proforma invoice, road permit and delivery note, and the railway authorities had not accepted any enclosure or declaration form at booking. The transporter could not be faulted for not filling or signing the declaration form in those circumstances, and the consignee&#039;s name appeared on the railway receipt. As no effective further inquiry established an intention to evade tax, the adverse inference based only on doubt and suspicion was rejected, and deletion of the penalty was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 09:09:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454145" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 273 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337193</link>
      <description>Penalty for alleged non-compliance in railway transport of goods was found unsustainable because the assessee had produced the railway receipt, proforma invoice, road permit and delivery note, and the railway authorities had not accepted any enclosure or declaration form at booking. The transporter could not be faulted for not filling or signing the declaration form in those circumstances, and the consignee&#039;s name appeared on the railway receipt. As no effective further inquiry established an intention to evade tax, the adverse inference based only on doubt and suspicion was rejected, and deletion of the penalty was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337193</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>