<?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>1955 (4) TMI 29 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127393</link>
    <description>A notification under section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was treated as prospective and confined to sales made after it came into force. The text and stock-declaration requirement showed that the enhanced single-point rate applied only to goods in circulation after the notification, not to sales already completed in the preceding year. The scheme of sections 3 and 7 indicated that liability on the previous year&#039;s turnover had already accrued at the then prevailing rate, so a later notification could not retrospectively increase that burden. Section 7-B(2), introduced later, was inapplicable because it governed rate variations occurring during the assessment year after its commencement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 12:59:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164270" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (4) TMI 29 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127393</link>
      <description>A notification under section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was treated as prospective and confined to sales made after it came into force. The text and stock-declaration requirement showed that the enhanced single-point rate applied only to goods in circulation after the notification, not to sales already completed in the preceding year. The scheme of sections 3 and 7 indicated that liability on the previous year&#039;s turnover had already accrued at the then prevailing rate, so a later notification could not retrospectively increase that burden. Section 7-B(2), introduced later, was inapplicable because it governed rate variations occurring during the assessment year after its commencement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127393</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>