<?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>1985 (8) TMI 360 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155148</link>
    <description>Under the unamended section 11B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, interest for default in tax payment was confined to completed months and could not be levied for a fraction of a month. The provision was treated as ambiguous and was construed in line with the long-standing administrative and quasi-judicial practice of the revenue authorities, which had consistently applied interest only to full months of default. The Court also noted that the section had been repealed and replaced by materially different wording, so the settled interpretation should not be disturbed. The petitions were dismissed, with each party left to bear its own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Aug 2013 17:10:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172179" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (8) TMI 360 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155148</link>
      <description>Under the unamended section 11B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, interest for default in tax payment was confined to completed months and could not be levied for a fraction of a month. The provision was treated as ambiguous and was construed in line with the long-standing administrative and quasi-judicial practice of the revenue authorities, which had consistently applied interest only to full months of default. The Court also noted that the section had been repealed and replaced by materially different wording, so the settled interpretation should not be disturbed. The petitions were dismissed, with each party left to bear its own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155148</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>