https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758520 The HC set aside the Commissioner Tax Tribunal's order and upheld the JCA's decision, allowing the revision. The court held that a 2012 notification requiring transporters to carry specific documents could not be retrospectively applied to goods seized in 2008-2009. Since the assessment order was passed in 2009 before the notification existed, the case had to be examined under the law applicable at that time. The court found that as a railway transporter, the revisionist could not be held liable for tax when no checking was conducted during transportation and the goods were moved via railway coach, distinguishing this from road transport where check-posts operate. en-us Tue, 20 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Sep 2024 07:59:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758520 The HC set aside the Commissioner Tax Tribunal's order and upheld the JCA's decision, allowing the revision. The court held that a 2012 notification requiring transporters to carry specific documents could not be retrospectively applied to goods seized in 2008-2009. Since the assessment order was passed in 2009 before the notification existed, the case had to be examined under the law applicable at that time. The court found that as a railway transporter, the revisionist could not be held liable for tax when no checking was conducted during transportation and the goods were moved via railway coach, distinguishing this from road transport where check-posts operate. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Tue, 20 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758520