<?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 (5) TMI 929 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752876</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was unsustainable because the check-post proceedings were conducted without a proper inquiry and without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The order proceeded hastily despite the driver&#039;s explanation that documents had been shown at the check-post but were not stamped due to rush and an impending transport strike. The statutory scheme required production of documents, inquiry, and hearing before penalty. The absence of material showing tax evasion, together with the prior exoneration of the goods owner on the available documents, further weakened the basis for penalty. Relief to the assessee was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2024 08:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=753703" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 929 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752876</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was unsustainable because the check-post proceedings were conducted without a proper inquiry and without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The order proceeded hastily despite the driver&#039;s explanation that documents had been shown at the check-post but were not stamped due to rush and an impending transport strike. The statutory scheme required production of documents, inquiry, and hearing before penalty. The absence of material showing tax evasion, together with the prior exoneration of the goods owner on the available documents, further weakened the basis for penalty. Relief to the assessee was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752876</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>