<?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>1959 (6) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127986</link>
    <description>Registration machinery did not control the charging provision: liability arose from the tax on dealers whose turnover exceeded the taxable quantum, so an alleged defect in appointment of the registering authority or in the registration certificate did not invalidate the assessment. The levy was not a corporation tax, because it remained a tax on sales of goods and companies were affected only incidentally. The tax was also within the sales-entry legislative field, since turnover, sale price and related definitions showed that the consideration formed part of the sale transaction itself. The challenge to the assessment and legislative competence was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:19:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164858" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (6) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127986</link>
      <description>Registration machinery did not control the charging provision: liability arose from the tax on dealers whose turnover exceeded the taxable quantum, so an alleged defect in appointment of the registering authority or in the registration certificate did not invalidate the assessment. The levy was not a corporation tax, because it remained a tax on sales of goods and companies were affected only incidentally. The tax was also within the sales-entry legislative field, since turnover, sale price and related definitions showed that the consideration formed part of the sale transaction itself. The challenge to the assessment and legislative competence was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127986</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>