<?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>1968 (8) TMI 176 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148551</link>
    <description>Under the predeposit requirement in the first proviso to section 9(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, &quot;admitted tax&quot; means the tax payable on the dealer&#039;s declared net turnover at the statutory rate and under the notification then in force. A dealer cannot reduce that admitted liability before the appellate authority by challenging the validity or vires of the notification, because such authorities have no jurisdiction to decide that question. The appeal could not be entertained without proof of payment of the admitted tax, and the plea that the importer was not a successive dealer was unavailable for avoiding the statutory deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:13:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166591" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (8) TMI 176 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148551</link>
      <description>Under the predeposit requirement in the first proviso to section 9(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, &quot;admitted tax&quot; means the tax payable on the dealer&#039;s declared net turnover at the statutory rate and under the notification then in force. A dealer cannot reduce that admitted liability before the appellate authority by challenging the validity or vires of the notification, because such authorities have no jurisdiction to decide that question. The appeal could not be entertained without proof of payment of the admitted tax, and the plea that the importer was not a successive dealer was unavailable for avoiding the statutory deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148551</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>