<?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>1990 (2) TMI 270 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155943</link>
    <description>A notification issued under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 was upheld as a valid machinery provision regulating only the interval for payment of tax. The amended schedule was read with the original notification and was held not to convert registered dealers into casual dealers or import the full liability under section 10A. The State&#039;s power to prescribe shorter, even nil or immediate, payment intervals was treated as consistent with the statute where tax liability had already arisen on sale. The measure was also found to have a sufficient nexus with preventing tax evasion, and alleged misuse in individual cases did not invalidate the notification itself.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2013 12:26:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (2) TMI 270 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155943</link>
      <description>A notification issued under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 was upheld as a valid machinery provision regulating only the interval for payment of tax. The amended schedule was read with the original notification and was held not to convert registered dealers into casual dealers or import the full liability under section 10A. The State&#039;s power to prescribe shorter, even nil or immediate, payment intervals was treated as consistent with the statute where tax liability had already arisen on sale. The measure was also found to have a sufficient nexus with preventing tax evasion, and alleged misuse in individual cases did not invalidate the notification itself.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155943</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>