<?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>2015 (9) TMI 1510 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189571</link>
    <description>Penalty under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act was treated as unjustified where the declaration form accompanied the goods, a fresh duly filled form was produced on demand, and the omission in one column was regarded as a technical defect not going to the root of the transaction. The concurrent factual findings that the discrepancy did not indicate tax evasion were held to be free from perversity, so no substantial question of law arose for interference in revision. The penalty order remained set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:10:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455247" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 1510 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189571</link>
      <description>Penalty under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act was treated as unjustified where the declaration form accompanied the goods, a fresh duly filled form was produced on demand, and the omission in one column was regarded as a technical defect not going to the root of the transaction. The concurrent factual findings that the discrepancy did not indicate tax evasion were held to be free from perversity, so no substantial question of law arose for interference in revision. The penalty order remained set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189571</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>