<?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>2024 (1) TMI 1115 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448716</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed revisions challenging penalty imposed under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for unauthorized use of Form C. The revisionist purchased valves, regulators, PP caps, and aluminum seals not mentioned in registration certificate, claiming bona fide belief these items were covered under &quot;container.&quot; The Court held revisionist failed to provide cogent materials justifying bona fide belief. The purchased items could not be connected to &quot;container&quot; mentioned in registration certificate by any interpretation. The Commercial Tax Tribunal&#039;s orders imposing penalty were upheld as no legal infirmity existed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Jan 2024 19:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=741537" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 1115 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448716</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed revisions challenging penalty imposed under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for unauthorized use of Form C. The revisionist purchased valves, regulators, PP caps, and aluminum seals not mentioned in registration certificate, claiming bona fide belief these items were covered under &quot;container.&quot; The Court held revisionist failed to provide cogent materials justifying bona fide belief. The purchased items could not be connected to &quot;container&quot; mentioned in registration certificate by any interpretation. The Commercial Tax Tribunal&#039;s orders imposing penalty were upheld as no legal infirmity existed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448716</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>