<?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 (12) TMI 790 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105040</link>
    <description>Outside manufacturers remained statutorily liable to collect and deposit sales tax at the enhanced 8% rate. Their decision to collect only 4% from customers was voluntary and did not create any legal right to avoid the balance liability. The earlier Supreme Court ruling striking down the local manufacturers&#039; exemption prospectively, with a bar on refund, did not assist them because it only restricted refund claims by exempted manufacturers and did not extinguish the independent tax obligation of outside manufacturers. As the levy and enhanced rate were never held unlawful and no interim protection prevented full collection, the demand for the remaining tax was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Aug 2013 12:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142079" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 790 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105040</link>
      <description>Outside manufacturers remained statutorily liable to collect and deposit sales tax at the enhanced 8% rate. Their decision to collect only 4% from customers was voluntary and did not create any legal right to avoid the balance liability. The earlier Supreme Court ruling striking down the local manufacturers&#039; exemption prospectively, with a bar on refund, did not assist them because it only restricted refund claims by exempted manufacturers and did not extinguish the independent tax obligation of outside manufacturers. As the levy and enhanced rate were never held unlawful and no interim protection prevented full collection, the demand for the remaining tax was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105040</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>