<?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 (9) TMI 1885 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472475</link>
    <description>Under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, a railway container contractor&#039;s failure to disclose consignor and consignee particulars can sustain tax liability. Where materially identical facts are governed by an earlier binding ruling on the tax consequences of that non-disclosure, the same legal position applies. Non-disclosure of the relevant consignor and consignee details does not justify exoneration from VAT liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 06:16:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=929643" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 1885 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472475</link>
      <description>Under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, a railway container contractor&#039;s failure to disclose consignor and consignee particulars can sustain tax liability. Where materially identical facts are governed by an earlier binding ruling on the tax consequences of that non-disclosure, the same legal position applies. Non-disclosure of the relevant consignor and consignee details does not justify exoneration from VAT liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472475</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>