<?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>2005 (5) TMI 313 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105595</link>
    <description>Under section 83 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, notice and the absence of any stay triggered a mandatory statutory purchase mechanism: the dealer remained bound to sell the seized goods, and the authority was required to pay the purchase price, subject only to adjustment of any penalty-related amount pending appeal. Liability for that purchase price was treated as that of the State, so a direction to recover it personally from the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer was unsustainable and was set aside. Once payment was directed, the section 83 dispute became infructuous, while the penalty-related challenge under section 78(5) continued.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:27:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142633" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 313 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105595</link>
      <description>Under section 83 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, notice and the absence of any stay triggered a mandatory statutory purchase mechanism: the dealer remained bound to sell the seized goods, and the authority was required to pay the purchase price, subject only to adjustment of any penalty-related amount pending appeal. Liability for that purchase price was treated as that of the State, so a direction to recover it personally from the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer was unsustainable and was set aside. Once payment was directed, the section 83 dispute became infructuous, while the penalty-related challenge under section 78(5) continued.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105595</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>