<?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>2020 (3) TMI 820 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393676</link>
    <description>Penalty could not be sustained on a mere presumption that Form 38 was filled with magic ink and capable of reuse when the goods were accompanied by invoice, bilty and books of account showing the transaction. The Tribunal found that the invoice and bilty were properly filled in ordinary ink, and that the alleged defect in Form 38 alone did not establish evasion. On those facts, the penalty was held legally unsustainable and the revision failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Mar 2020 10:00:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=607570" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 820 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393676</link>
      <description>Penalty could not be sustained on a mere presumption that Form 38 was filled with magic ink and capable of reuse when the goods were accompanied by invoice, bilty and books of account showing the transaction. The Tribunal found that the invoice and bilty were properly filled in ordinary ink, and that the alleged defect in Form 38 alone did not establish evasion. On those facts, the penalty was held legally unsustainable and the revision failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393676</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>