<?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>2000 (11) TMI 1239 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190065</link>
    <description>A challenge to a penalty notice was held maintainable notwithstanding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, because the dispute concerned the legality of the initiation of proceedings itself. On the merits, penalty under Section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was found unsustainable where goods were accompanied by bills, bilty and other correct documents, and the only defect was an incomplete Form ST 18A. The surrounding circumstances showed no discrepancy or intention to evade tax, so a merely technical defect did not justify penalty. The quashing of the penalty proceedings was accordingly upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2017 17:58:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457351" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 1239 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190065</link>
      <description>A challenge to a penalty notice was held maintainable notwithstanding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, because the dispute concerned the legality of the initiation of proceedings itself. On the merits, penalty under Section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was found unsustainable where goods were accompanied by bills, bilty and other correct documents, and the only defect was an incomplete Form ST 18A. The surrounding circumstances showed no discrepancy or intention to evade tax, so a merely technical defect did not justify penalty. The quashing of the penalty proceedings was accordingly upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190065</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>