<?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>1956 (9) TMI 51 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127676</link>
    <description>Non-payment of assessed sales tax within the time allowed was treated as a wilful default where the failure was deliberate and conscious, not merely inadvertent. Pending appeals or revisions against the assessment did not suspend the obligation to pay the demand, although the accused could still challenge the validity or excessiveness of the assessment. On the facts stated, the amount finally due remained unpaid in time, so liability under section 14(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was attracted. The offence was also held to be one governed by the Criminal Procedure Code because the Act did not prescribe a special trial or appeal procedure, making the State&#039;s appeal against acquittal competent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:07:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164551" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (9) TMI 51 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127676</link>
      <description>Non-payment of assessed sales tax within the time allowed was treated as a wilful default where the failure was deliberate and conscious, not merely inadvertent. Pending appeals or revisions against the assessment did not suspend the obligation to pay the demand, although the accused could still challenge the validity or excessiveness of the assessment. On the facts stated, the amount finally due remained unpaid in time, so liability under section 14(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was attracted. The offence was also held to be one governed by the Criminal Procedure Code because the Act did not prescribe a special trial or appeal procedure, making the State&#039;s appeal against acquittal competent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127676</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>