<?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>2002 (4) TMI 969 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190062</link>
    <description>In fiscal penalty proceedings, breach of a mandatory transport-document requirement can itself attract civil liability, and mens rea is not required unless the statute expressly so provides. Where goods were carried without the prescribed declaration form, the statutory contravention was sufficient to sustain penalty. The assessee could not avoid liability by blaming the transporter, because the obligation remained to ensure that the goods were accompanied by correct prescribed documents. Incorrect particulars in the bill or failure to carry the declaration amounted to non-compliance, so the penalty was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2017 17:49:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457346" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 969 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190062</link>
      <description>In fiscal penalty proceedings, breach of a mandatory transport-document requirement can itself attract civil liability, and mens rea is not required unless the statute expressly so provides. Where goods were carried without the prescribed declaration form, the statutory contravention was sufficient to sustain penalty. The assessee could not avoid liability by blaming the transporter, because the obligation remained to ensure that the goods were accompanied by correct prescribed documents. Incorrect particulars in the bill or failure to carry the declaration amounted to non-compliance, so the penalty was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190062</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>