<?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>1963 (12) TMI 21 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128956</link>
    <description>Section 12A(4) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act was construed to cover amounts collected by a registered dealer as tax on sales not taxable under the Act, including outside-State sales, because the provision targets any collection by way of tax where no tax is payable and operates independently of the charging provisions. The Court also upheld the forfeiture mechanism as a valid restriction under Article 19(5), holding that it prevents abuse of the taxing law, consumer exploitation, and unjust retention of wrongly collected sums. Forfeiture was treated as a penalty that the dealer could avoid by refunding the amount to the purchaser.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:12:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165825" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (12) TMI 21 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128956</link>
      <description>Section 12A(4) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act was construed to cover amounts collected by a registered dealer as tax on sales not taxable under the Act, including outside-State sales, because the provision targets any collection by way of tax where no tax is payable and operates independently of the charging provisions. The Court also upheld the forfeiture mechanism as a valid restriction under Article 19(5), holding that it prevents abuse of the taxing law, consumer exploitation, and unjust retention of wrongly collected sums. Forfeiture was treated as a penalty that the dealer could avoid by refunding the amount to the purchaser.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128956</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>