<?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>Penalty for Form 38 Discrepancy Overturned: Officer Failed to Complete Column 8 at Check Post; Tribunal Agrees.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=51095</link>
    <description>Imposition of penalty - discrepancy in Form 38, E-Sugam form - the Officer managing the Check Post after verifying the goods should have filled up the Column 8 of Form 38 in accordance with the documents and there was no occasion for imposing a penalty as has been done by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commercial Tax Tribunal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2020 07:26:45 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2020 07:26:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=599608" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Penalty for Form 38 Discrepancy Overturned: Officer Failed to Complete Column 8 at Check Post; Tribunal Agrees.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=51095</link>
      <description>Imposition of penalty - discrepancy in Form 38, E-Sugam form - the Officer managing the Check Post after verifying the goods should have filled up the Column 8 of Form 38 in accordance with the documents and there was no occasion for imposing a penalty as has been done by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commercial Tax Tribunal.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2020 07:26:45 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=51095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>