<?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>1995 (2) TMI 364 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157782</link>
    <description>Forfeiture under section 37 applies only to tax unlawfully collected and retained in contravention of section 46, so amounts already paid over to the Government as tax on the same transactions cannot be forfeited. The provision is discretionary, and the phrase &quot;shall be forfeited&quot; is read as &quot;shall be liable to be forfeited,&quot; limited to the sum actually collected and kept by the dealer. Registration under section 22 is treated as registration of the dealer, not merely of each place of business, so failure to file a separate branch application was only a directory breach and did not make the dealer unregistered for forfeiture purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:53:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174805" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (2) TMI 364 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157782</link>
      <description>Forfeiture under section 37 applies only to tax unlawfully collected and retained in contravention of section 46, so amounts already paid over to the Government as tax on the same transactions cannot be forfeited. The provision is discretionary, and the phrase &quot;shall be forfeited&quot; is read as &quot;shall be liable to be forfeited,&quot; limited to the sum actually collected and kept by the dealer. Registration under section 22 is treated as registration of the dealer, not merely of each place of business, so failure to file a separate branch application was only a directory breach and did not make the dealer unregistered for forfeiture purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157782</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>