<?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>2022 (8) TMI 159 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425920</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act was treated as sustainable where Form C was used for goods not covered by the dealer&#039;s registration certificate. The absence of mens rea did not defeat the penalty on the facts, because the dealer had not obtained registration for the relevant goods for the assessment year and continued to use concessional forms despite that omission. The Court also held that railway siding, locomotives, transformer and spare parts could not escape penalty on the plea that they were integral to manufacture, as later inclusion in registration did not cure the earlier unauthorised use of Form C. The revision was dismissed and the penalty order upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2022 08:32:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=687007" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 159 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425920</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act was treated as sustainable where Form C was used for goods not covered by the dealer&#039;s registration certificate. The absence of mens rea did not defeat the penalty on the facts, because the dealer had not obtained registration for the relevant goods for the assessment year and continued to use concessional forms despite that omission. The Court also held that railway siding, locomotives, transformer and spare parts could not escape penalty on the plea that they were integral to manufacture, as later inclusion in registration did not cure the earlier unauthorised use of Form C. The revision was dismissed and the penalty order upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425920</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>