<?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 371 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156116</link>
    <description>Tax on works contracts was confined to the transfer of property in goods, and labour charges could not be brought into taxable turnover beyond the constitutional and statutory limits recognised under Article 366(29A) and Article 286. Rule 13-A was therefore unsustainable to the extent it treated labour components as taxable. The assessment-linked demand and connected penalty were also quashed because the assessing authority had not properly accounted for source deductions and the matter required reconsideration after hearing the dealer. However, the separate penalty for delayed filing of returns was upheld, as no illegality or jurisdictional error was shown in that independent exercise of penalty power.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2013 17:06:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173143" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (9) TMI 371 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156116</link>
      <description>Tax on works contracts was confined to the transfer of property in goods, and labour charges could not be brought into taxable turnover beyond the constitutional and statutory limits recognised under Article 366(29A) and Article 286. Rule 13-A was therefore unsustainable to the extent it treated labour components as taxable. The assessment-linked demand and connected penalty were also quashed because the assessing authority had not properly accounted for source deductions and the matter required reconsideration after hearing the dealer. However, the separate penalty for delayed filing of returns was upheld, as no illegality or jurisdictional error was shown in that independent exercise of penalty power.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156116</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>