<?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>2025 (11) TMI 2050 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470816</link>
    <description>Transport of goods with an unfilled Form 38 did not constitute a contravention where the statutory requirement for a duly completed form had not yet taken effect. The absence of intent to evade tax was supported by the accompanying Form 38 and other transport documents. As the requirement to fill Form 38 was introduced only after the relevant seizure, penalty could not be sustained, and its deletion was justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2026 21:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=916360" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 2050 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470816</link>
      <description>Transport of goods with an unfilled Form 38 did not constitute a contravention where the statutory requirement for a duly completed form had not yet taken effect. The absence of intent to evade tax was supported by the accompanying Form 38 and other transport documents. As the requirement to fill Form 38 was introduced only after the relevant seizure, penalty could not be sustained, and its deletion was justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470816</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>