<?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>1989 (9) TMI 358 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155921</link>
    <description>A commission agent acting for disclosed principals could not be assessed to turnover tax on the aggregated turnover of multiple principals under section 6B of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The statutory definition of &quot;dealer&quot; covered such an agent, but the definition of &quot;turnover&quot; did not expressly permit clubbing of sales made on behalf of others. The agent&#039;s liability remained co-extensive only with each principal individually, and the absence of an express provision authorising aggregation was decisive. Reimbursement rights against principals did not justify assessment on a combined basis. The impugned assessments were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:30:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172948" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (9) TMI 358 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155921</link>
      <description>A commission agent acting for disclosed principals could not be assessed to turnover tax on the aggregated turnover of multiple principals under section 6B of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The statutory definition of &quot;dealer&quot; covered such an agent, but the definition of &quot;turnover&quot; did not expressly permit clubbing of sales made on behalf of others. The agent&#039;s liability remained co-extensive only with each principal individually, and the absence of an express provision authorising aggregation was decisive. Reimbursement rights against principals did not justify assessment on a combined basis. The impugned assessments were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155921</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>