<?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 (6) TMI 432 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344161</link>
    <description>Authorities may verify transit goods against the Transit Declaration Form and supporting documents, and may extend physical verification only to test whether the disclosed description is truthful. Where the goods found differ from or exceed the declared consignment, detention and seizure may be sustained and a rebuttable presumption may arise for action under the release provisions, including a security condition. Imperfect particulars of consignor or consignee do not, by themselves, justify detention when the declaration and documents otherwise match the consignment. Alleged defect in service was also not accepted on the facts. The security requirement for release was only reduced, while the power to detain goods for mismatch was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2018 14:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=471500" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 432 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344161</link>
      <description>Authorities may verify transit goods against the Transit Declaration Form and supporting documents, and may extend physical verification only to test whether the disclosed description is truthful. Where the goods found differ from or exceed the declared consignment, detention and seizure may be sustained and a rebuttable presumption may arise for action under the release provisions, including a security condition. Imperfect particulars of consignor or consignee do not, by themselves, justify detention when the declaration and documents otherwise match the consignment. Alleged defect in service was also not accepted on the facts. The security requirement for release was only reduced, while the power to detain goods for mismatch was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344161</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>