<?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>2018 (12) TMI 769 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372000</link>
    <description>Penalty under the U.P. Trade Tax Act could not be sustained without a positive finding of intent to evade tax. The court noted that the import declaration form and other prescribed documents accompanying the goods were duly completed and no defect was found in them; a discrepancy between the invoice and statutory documents, by itself, only called for further inquiry and did not establish evasion. The court also held that if the Tribunal&#039;s own reasoning was accepted, the goods were treated as moving outside U.P.&#039;s taxing jurisdiction, so no penalty could arise under the Act. The revision succeeded, the penalty order was set aside, and refund of any deposited amount followed in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2018 18:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=547071" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 769 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372000</link>
      <description>Penalty under the U.P. Trade Tax Act could not be sustained without a positive finding of intent to evade tax. The court noted that the import declaration form and other prescribed documents accompanying the goods were duly completed and no defect was found in them; a discrepancy between the invoice and statutory documents, by itself, only called for further inquiry and did not establish evasion. The court also held that if the Tribunal&#039;s own reasoning was accepted, the goods were treated as moving outside U.P.&#039;s taxing jurisdiction, so no penalty could arise under the Act. The revision succeeded, the penalty order was set aside, and refund of any deposited amount followed in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372000</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>