<?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>1969 (9) TMI 98 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148724</link>
    <description>Interest on unpaid sales tax accrued automatically under section 8(1-A) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and was recoverable as an incident of the existing tax liability. The majority held that the deeming fiction treating interest as part of tax operated for recovery purposes, so no separate assessment order, fresh notice of demand, or independent assessment proceeding was required. The absence of any express statutory provision for a separate appeal or revision against an interest order, and the practical inability to quantify interest before payment, supported this construction. The dissent would have extended the fiction to procedural incidents as well, but the majority answered the question against the taxpayer and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 16:00:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166764" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (9) TMI 98 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148724</link>
      <description>Interest on unpaid sales tax accrued automatically under section 8(1-A) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and was recoverable as an incident of the existing tax liability. The majority held that the deeming fiction treating interest as part of tax operated for recovery purposes, so no separate assessment order, fresh notice of demand, or independent assessment proceeding was required. The absence of any express statutory provision for a separate appeal or revision against an interest order, and the practical inability to quantify interest before payment, supported this construction. The dissent would have extended the fiction to procedural incidents as well, but the majority answered the question against the taxpayer and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>