<?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>2000 (2) TMI 729 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104822</link>
    <description>Section 13-AA of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, as amended from 4 October 1993, was analysed as a tax deduction at source mechanism for works contracts, but it did not exclude amounts attributable to inter-State sales, sales outside the State, or sales in the course of import. On that basis, the provision was considered to travel beyond the State Legislature&#039;s taxing competence under the constitutional scheme governing State sales tax. The owner penalised for non-deduction was also held to have standing to challenge the provision because penal consequences were imposed directly on it under the impugned law. The amendment was therefore struck down and amounts collected under it were directed to be refunded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141861" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 729 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104822</link>
      <description>Section 13-AA of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, as amended from 4 October 1993, was analysed as a tax deduction at source mechanism for works contracts, but it did not exclude amounts attributable to inter-State sales, sales outside the State, or sales in the course of import. On that basis, the provision was considered to travel beyond the State Legislature&#039;s taxing competence under the constitutional scheme governing State sales tax. The owner penalised for non-deduction was also held to have standing to challenge the provision because penal consequences were imposed directly on it under the impugned law. The amendment was therefore struck down and amounts collected under it were directed to be refunded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104822</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>