https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346619 Conflicting interpretations of Section 52 of the Value Added Tax Act, 2008 read with Rule 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 concerned whether the Transit Declaration Form was mandatory on entry into the State and whether non-production justified seizure of goods. One line of authority treated absence of the form as insufficient for seizure because the circular-based requirement was seen as impractical and not expressly supported by the Act; the other held that the form had to accompany the consignment and that later downloading did not cure the default. The issue was referred to a Larger Bench for authoritative clarification. en-us Tue, 01 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jan 2018 12:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346619 Conflicting interpretations of Section 52 of the Value Added Tax Act, 2008 read with Rule 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 concerned whether the Transit Declaration Form was mandatory on entry into the State and whether non-production justified seizure of goods. One line of authority treated absence of the form as insufficient for seizure because the circular-based requirement was seen as impractical and not expressly supported by the Act; the other held that the form had to accompany the consignment and that later downloading did not cure the default. The issue was referred to a Larger Bench for authoritative clarification. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 01 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346619