<?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>2010 (8) TMI 1133 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285624</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was found unjustified because the assessee showed the seized goods were entered in its regular books of account at the place of business and had been cleared by the tax authorities in Bihar. The State did not dispute the authenticity of those tax clearances in its supplementary counter affidavit. As the factual foundation for invoking penalty was not established, the penalty was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2020 11:42:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=600860" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 1133 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285624</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was found unjustified because the assessee showed the seized goods were entered in its regular books of account at the place of business and had been cleared by the tax authorities in Bihar. The State did not dispute the authenticity of those tax clearances in its supplementary counter affidavit. As the factual foundation for invoking penalty was not established, the penalty was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285624</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>