<?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 (10) TMI 952 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387468</link>
    <description>Where transport documents described goods only as hosiery items, the Court held that woollen garments were a distinct category of ready-made garments and the bills did not identify them as such. In the absence of independent evidence linking the goods described in the bills with the goods actually transported, the finding that the goods were not properly accounted for in the books of account was sustained. The Tribunal was also found to have considered the matter on merits after the earlier remand and to have complied with those directions. The penalty-related finding was therefore upheld, and no infirmity was found in the remand compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2019 07:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=591918" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (10) TMI 952 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387468</link>
      <description>Where transport documents described goods only as hosiery items, the Court held that woollen garments were a distinct category of ready-made garments and the bills did not identify them as such. In the absence of independent evidence linking the goods described in the bills with the goods actually transported, the finding that the goods were not properly accounted for in the books of account was sustained. The Tribunal was also found to have considered the matter on merits after the earlier remand and to have complied with those directions. The penalty-related finding was therefore upheld, and no infirmity was found in the remand compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387468</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>