<?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>1981 (3) TMI 225 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153001</link>
    <description>Liability under section 41(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, arising from breach of a declaration in Form T linked to an exemption notification, is not a levy on taxable turnover but recovery of the tax loss caused by the breach. The applicable rate and amount can be ascertained from the nature of the goods, the relevant schedule, the dealer&#039;s documents, and surrounding statutory records; if accounts are incomplete, the Commissioner may determine the amount on the best available material under section 41(3). The Court held that the provision remains workable and enforceable because the tax due on the exempted transaction can be quantified with precision. The answer to the reframed issue was against the purchaser and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:11:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170038" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (3) TMI 225 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153001</link>
      <description>Liability under section 41(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, arising from breach of a declaration in Form T linked to an exemption notification, is not a levy on taxable turnover but recovery of the tax loss caused by the breach. The applicable rate and amount can be ascertained from the nature of the goods, the relevant schedule, the dealer&#039;s documents, and surrounding statutory records; if accounts are incomplete, the Commissioner may determine the amount on the best available material under section 41(3). The Court held that the provision remains workable and enforceable because the tax due on the exempted transaction can be quantified with precision. The answer to the reframed issue was against the purchaser and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153001</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>