<?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>1962 (3) TMI 59 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99527</link>
    <description>Liability to sales tax arose from the charging provision and was not made conditional on valid registration under section 8. The registration requirement governed dealer compliance and assessment procedure, but it did not affect the substantive tax liability created by the Act. An invalid registration certificate, even if assumed, did not deprive the taxing authorities of jurisdiction where their power to assess otherwise existed under the Act. A defect in the mode of assuming jurisdiction was only an irregularity and did not make the assessment a nullity open to collateral challenge. The challenge to the assessments therefore failed, and the civil suit was also barred by the statutory exclusion of civil court jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136579" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (3) TMI 59 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99527</link>
      <description>Liability to sales tax arose from the charging provision and was not made conditional on valid registration under section 8. The registration requirement governed dealer compliance and assessment procedure, but it did not affect the substantive tax liability created by the Act. An invalid registration certificate, even if assumed, did not deprive the taxing authorities of jurisdiction where their power to assess otherwise existed under the Act. A defect in the mode of assuming jurisdiction was only an irregularity and did not make the assessment a nullity open to collateral challenge. The challenge to the assessments therefore failed, and the civil suit was also barred by the statutory exclusion of civil court jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99527</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>