<?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>1994 (5) TMI 233 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150957</link>
    <description>Under the unamended Rajasthan sales tax scheme, interest was chargeable only on tax due under the return or under a notice of demand, and not on additional tax found payable only after final assessment. Reading Section 7, Rule 25 and Section 11-B together, the Court held that the provision did not authorise interest from the date of filing of the return on differential tax attributable to freight charges, particularly where the dealer had disclosed and paid the tax shown in the return on a bona fide basis. The earlier majority view in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. was disapproved, and the minority view was accepted as correctly stating the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167996" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (5) TMI 233 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150957</link>
      <description>Under the unamended Rajasthan sales tax scheme, interest was chargeable only on tax due under the return or under a notice of demand, and not on additional tax found payable only after final assessment. Reading Section 7, Rule 25 and Section 11-B together, the Court held that the provision did not authorise interest from the date of filing of the return on differential tax attributable to freight charges, particularly where the dealer had disclosed and paid the tax shown in the return on a bona fide basis. The earlier majority view in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. was disapproved, and the minority view was accepted as correctly stating the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150957</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>