<?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>2008 (8) TMI 791 - Calcutta High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153346</link>
    <description>A statutory settlement authority under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 cannot include contingent sales tax liability outside the express scope of the Finance Act, 1998 scheme while computing tax arrears. The scheme was confined to specified indirect tax enactments and to tax arrears comprising duty, cess, interest, fine or penalty under those enactments; sales tax dues payable to a State Government were not covered. An order under section 90(3) is conclusive only for matters lawfully within the scheme and does not cure a demand made without jurisdiction. The certificate could therefore be amended, and the incorrect inclusion was held invalid and unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2014 17:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170381" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 791 - Calcutta High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153346</link>
      <description>A statutory settlement authority under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 cannot include contingent sales tax liability outside the express scope of the Finance Act, 1998 scheme while computing tax arrears. The scheme was confined to specified indirect tax enactments and to tax arrears comprising duty, cess, interest, fine or penalty under those enactments; sales tax dues payable to a State Government were not covered. An order under section 90(3) is conclusive only for matters lawfully within the scheme and does not cure a demand made without jurisdiction. The certificate could therefore be amended, and the incorrect inclusion was held invalid and unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153346</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>