<?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 (8) TMI 309 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155951</link>
    <description>Interest under section 25(5) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 was held not chargeable where the dealer filed the return and paid tax within the extended time granted by the competent authority. Rule 62 permits the prescribed period for filing returns and payment of tax to be extended for special reasons recorded in writing, and once that extension is validly granted, the original due date stands shifted to the extended date. As no default occurred within the extended period, the liability to automatic interest under section 25(5) did not arise. The question was answered in the negative and against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:03:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172978" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (8) TMI 309 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155951</link>
      <description>Interest under section 25(5) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 was held not chargeable where the dealer filed the return and paid tax within the extended time granted by the competent authority. Rule 62 permits the prescribed period for filing returns and payment of tax to be extended for special reasons recorded in writing, and once that extension is validly granted, the original due date stands shifted to the extended date. As no default occurred within the extended period, the liability to automatic interest under section 25(5) did not arise. The question was answered in the negative and against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155951</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>