<?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>2004 (2) TMI 341 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105287</link>
    <description>Sections 57 to 59 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994, were upheld as valid ancillary provisions under entry 54 of List II because they were directed at preventing and detecting sales tax evasion. The Court held that requiring clearing and forwarding agents to furnish information, maintain registers, and comply with verification-related obligations was a machinery measure in aid of assessment and reassessment, not a fresh levy on the agent. The penalty for non-compliance was treated as a deterrent linked to facilitation of dealer evasion, with a reasonable and proximate connection to taxable transactions. The State Legislature was therefore competent to enact the provisions, and the contrary view was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142325" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 341 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105287</link>
      <description>Sections 57 to 59 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994, were upheld as valid ancillary provisions under entry 54 of List II because they were directed at preventing and detecting sales tax evasion. The Court held that requiring clearing and forwarding agents to furnish information, maintain registers, and comply with verification-related obligations was a machinery measure in aid of assessment and reassessment, not a fresh levy on the agent. The penalty for non-compliance was treated as a deterrent linked to facilitation of dealer evasion, with a reasonable and proximate connection to taxable transactions. The State Legislature was therefore competent to enact the provisions, and the contrary view was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105287</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>