<?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 (8) TMI 905 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757201</link>
    <description>Penalty under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act was sustained because the inter-State movement of LPG valves was not supported by the statutory transport documents. The driver did not carry the goods receipt, the invoice omitted the destination station, and no satisfactory explanation was offered for the missing document. The Court held that Section 51(2) required the invoice and goods receipt to accompany the goods in transit, and non-compliance justified treating the movement as inadequately documented. A prior decision was distinguished because the relevant invoices had been produced on those facts. The challenge failed and the Tribunal&#039;s order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:25:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=764637" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 905 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757201</link>
      <description>Penalty under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act was sustained because the inter-State movement of LPG valves was not supported by the statutory transport documents. The driver did not carry the goods receipt, the invoice omitted the destination station, and no satisfactory explanation was offered for the missing document. The Court held that Section 51(2) required the invoice and goods receipt to accompany the goods in transit, and non-compliance justified treating the movement as inadequately documented. A prior decision was distinguished because the relevant invoices had been produced on those facts. The challenge failed and the Tribunal&#039;s order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757201</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>