<?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>2015 (11) TMI 1806 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286928</link>
    <description>Seizure of transported goods cannot be justified merely because Form-21 entries were written in different inks or might fade, where the required documents were otherwise complete and supported by G.R. and weigh slips. The text explains that Section 48 and Rule 55 permit seizure for false, incorrect or incomplete documents, but they do not prescribe any particular ink requirement. It further notes that, if authorities feared alteration, they could have copied and countersigned the form. On that basis, the Tribunal&#039;s affirmation of seizure was treated as erroneous and the goods were regarded as not liable to seizure on the ink issue alone.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Mar 2020 08:54:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=607546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 1806 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286928</link>
      <description>Seizure of transported goods cannot be justified merely because Form-21 entries were written in different inks or might fade, where the required documents were otherwise complete and supported by G.R. and weigh slips. The text explains that Section 48 and Rule 55 permit seizure for false, incorrect or incomplete documents, but they do not prescribe any particular ink requirement. It further notes that, if authorities feared alteration, they could have copied and countersigned the form. On that basis, the Tribunal&#039;s affirmation of seizure was treated as erroneous and the goods were regarded as not liable to seizure on the ink issue alone.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286928</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>