https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356184 Penalty for movement of goods without prescribed transport documents under the Karnataka VAT framework was upheld because the tax invoice produced at interception lacked mandatory consignee particulars and did not comply with the Rules. The Court held that, where goods are moved pursuant to sale, the person in charge must carry documents meeting the statutory requirements; non-compliance justified levy of penalty. Revisional interference restoring the penalty was also upheld because the appellate order had wrongly set aside a penalty supported by the mandatory statutory scheme, and the revisional reasons were found adequate. No ground for interference was made out. en-us Mon, 05 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Feb 2018 07:09:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356184 Penalty for movement of goods without prescribed transport documents under the Karnataka VAT framework was upheld because the tax invoice produced at interception lacked mandatory consignee particulars and did not comply with the Rules. The Court held that, where goods are moved pursuant to sale, the person in charge must carry documents meeting the statutory requirements; non-compliance justified levy of penalty. Revisional interference restoring the penalty was also upheld because the appellate order had wrongly set aside a penalty supported by the mandatory statutory scheme, and the revisional reasons were found adequate. No ground for interference was made out. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 05 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356184