<?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>2008 (5) TMI 733 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286943</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 13-A(4) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was held unsustainable where the goods belonged to a registered dealer, the bill was produced on the same day, and the account books and returns showed no discrepancy. The dealer&#039;s explanation was given at the earliest opportunity and remained consistent: the goods were being taken for weighing because no Dharam Kanta was available at the business premises, and the bill would be handed over after weighing. As the provision targets goods not relatable to a registered dealer or not duly accounted for, the explanation could not be treated as unbelievable and the penalty was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Mar 2020 14:40:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=607685" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 733 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286943</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 13-A(4) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was held unsustainable where the goods belonged to a registered dealer, the bill was produced on the same day, and the account books and returns showed no discrepancy. The dealer&#039;s explanation was given at the earliest opportunity and remained consistent: the goods were being taken for weighing because no Dharam Kanta was available at the business premises, and the bill would be handed over after weighing. As the provision targets goods not relatable to a registered dealer or not duly accounted for, the explanation could not be treated as unbelievable and the penalty was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286943</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>