<?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>1972 (3) TMI 77 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150264</link>
    <description>Where a dealer had duly applied for registration and the application remained pending due to delay by the tax officer, the dealer could not be treated as having failed to get itself registered for the period covered by that pending application. A notice premised on such alleged failure was therefore unsustainable for the period after the application was filed until registration was dealt with, but it remained operative for the earlier period before the application was made.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 18:41:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167305" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (3) TMI 77 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150264</link>
      <description>Where a dealer had duly applied for registration and the application remained pending due to delay by the tax officer, the dealer could not be treated as having failed to get itself registered for the period covered by that pending application. A notice premised on such alleged failure was therefore unsustainable for the period after the application was filed until registration was dealt with, but it remained operative for the earlier period before the application was made.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150264</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>