<?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>2019 (4) TMI 3 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377559</link>
    <description>The court held that the assessee was not liable for the penalty under Section 54(1)(5) of the U.P. VAT Act for four transactions where Tax Invoices were not issued. The court found that the assessee&#039;s claim of transactions with unregistered dealers, who did not provide TIN details, was valid. The court concluded in favor of the assessee, allowing the revision with no costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Mar 2019 17:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=564973" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 3 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377559</link>
      <description>The court held that the assessee was not liable for the penalty under Section 54(1)(5) of the U.P. VAT Act for four transactions where Tax Invoices were not issued. The court found that the assessee&#039;s claim of transactions with unregistered dealers, who did not provide TIN details, was valid. The court concluded in favor of the assessee, allowing the revision with no costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377559</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>