<?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>1991 (6) TMI 243 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157411</link>
    <description>A restraint on tax collection and a later instalment order do not stop statutory interest from accruing on unpaid turnover tax, because interest follows non-payment within the prescribed time and is not displaced unless the order expressly suspends that consequence. The dealer&#039;s returns also did not avoid interest liability: the statutory scheme required not only disclosure of turnover and tax due, but timely payment with the prescribed challan, and incomplete or unpaid returns remained within the interest provisions. On the stated facts, the dealer continued to be liable for interest on delayed turnover tax, and the demand could not be quashed on the basis of the court orders or the form of the returns.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2013 14:06:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174435" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (6) TMI 243 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157411</link>
      <description>A restraint on tax collection and a later instalment order do not stop statutory interest from accruing on unpaid turnover tax, because interest follows non-payment within the prescribed time and is not displaced unless the order expressly suspends that consequence. The dealer&#039;s returns also did not avoid interest liability: the statutory scheme required not only disclosure of turnover and tax due, but timely payment with the prescribed challan, and incomplete or unpaid returns remained within the interest provisions. On the stated facts, the dealer continued to be liable for interest on delayed turnover tax, and the demand could not be quashed on the basis of the court orders or the form of the returns.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157411</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>