<?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>1966 (10) TMI 142 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=146232</link>
    <description>Assessed sales tax under section 8(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act had to be paid as demanded within the notice period, and refund amounts from earlier assessment years could not be treated as an automatic set-off against later tax liability unless the statute or rules expressly allowed it. On that basis, the dealer remained in default and the recovery certificates were valid. Penal interest under section 8(1-A) was also held to be properly directed by the Sales Tax Officer, with the Collector limited to ministerial computation during recovery. The writ challenge to the recovery proceedings therefore failed on both grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:55:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166249" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (10) TMI 142 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=146232</link>
      <description>Assessed sales tax under section 8(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act had to be paid as demanded within the notice period, and refund amounts from earlier assessment years could not be treated as an automatic set-off against later tax liability unless the statute or rules expressly allowed it. On that basis, the dealer remained in default and the recovery certificates were valid. Penal interest under section 8(1-A) was also held to be properly directed by the Sales Tax Officer, with the Collector limited to ministerial computation during recovery. The writ challenge to the recovery proceedings therefore failed on both grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=146232</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>