<?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>1982 (12) TMI 176 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153924</link>
    <description>Forfeiture under section 46(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 applies only when a registered dealer collects tax in excess of the tax payable on the relevant transaction. The Bombay HC noted that the dealer&#039;s collection related to specific transactions and corresponded to purchase tax already payable under section 14 because the goods were not used in manufacturing taxable goods for sale. Applying its earlier construction of section 46(2), the Court held that an aggregate-year basis could not be used to treat such transaction-specific collections as unlawful excess collections. On those facts, the amount was not within the mischief of section 46(2), and forfeiture was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2013 16:24:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170958" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (12) TMI 176 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153924</link>
      <description>Forfeiture under section 46(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 applies only when a registered dealer collects tax in excess of the tax payable on the relevant transaction. The Bombay HC noted that the dealer&#039;s collection related to specific transactions and corresponded to purchase tax already payable under section 14 because the goods were not used in manufacturing taxable goods for sale. Applying its earlier construction of section 46(2), the Court held that an aggregate-year basis could not be used to treat such transaction-specific collections as unlawful excess collections. On those facts, the amount was not within the mischief of section 46(2), and forfeiture was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153924</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>