<?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>1988 (8) TMI 406 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155885</link>
    <description>The Calcutta HC discussed taxability of a club treated as a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, where the Tribunal had found systematic sales activity in supplies to non-members and other taxable transactions, while excluding supplies to members qua members. Because the earlier authority had remanded the matter for fresh assessment, no final assessment had become conclusive and no present prejudice was shown. The court therefore declined writ interference and left the assessment and taxability issues to be determined afresh on remand, while noting that the petitioners&#039; reliance on incidental-sale authorities did not fit the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 18:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (8) TMI 406 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155885</link>
      <description>The Calcutta HC discussed taxability of a club treated as a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, where the Tribunal had found systematic sales activity in supplies to non-members and other taxable transactions, while excluding supplies to members qua members. Because the earlier authority had remanded the matter for fresh assessment, no final assessment had become conclusive and no present prejudice was shown. The court therefore declined writ interference and left the assessment and taxability issues to be determined afresh on remand, while noting that the petitioners&#039; reliance on incidental-sale authorities did not fit the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155885</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>