<?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>2012 (5) TMI 152 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213193</link>
    <description>VAT set-off may validly be conditioned on tax having been actually paid into the Government treasury. Under the Maharashtra VAT framework, set-off is a statutory concession to prevent cascading taxes, but the available set-off or refund cannot exceed tax physically deposited; &quot;actually paid&quot; does not include tax that ought to have been paid. This condition bears a rational connection to revenue protection and abuse prevention, and hardship to bona fide purchasers does not make it discriminatory. The provision was upheld against the Article 14 challenge, reading down was rejected, and the related refund restriction was treated as a valid regulation of refunds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 14:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 152 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213193</link>
      <description>VAT set-off may validly be conditioned on tax having been actually paid into the Government treasury. Under the Maharashtra VAT framework, set-off is a statutory concession to prevent cascading taxes, but the available set-off or refund cannot exceed tax physically deposited; &quot;actually paid&quot; does not include tax that ought to have been paid. This condition bears a rational connection to revenue protection and abuse prevention, and hardship to bona fide purchasers does not make it discriminatory. The provision was upheld against the Article 14 challenge, reading down was rejected, and the related refund restriction was treated as a valid regulation of refunds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213193</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>