<?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>2013 (5) TMI 594 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234009</link>
    <description>The applicable notification prescribed sales tax at 1% for Copper Wire Rods and related goods, and the higher 4% collection was treated as inadvertent. The Tribunal&#039;s remarks were not an admission that 4% was the correct rate, because the real dispute was the proper rate of levy and no refund claim for the differential amount was pressed. The issue was covered by an earlier Rajasthan HC decision holding that the petitioner was liable only at 1%, so the rate was confirmed at 1% in favour of the taxpayer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196423" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 594 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234009</link>
      <description>The applicable notification prescribed sales tax at 1% for Copper Wire Rods and related goods, and the higher 4% collection was treated as inadvertent. The Tribunal&#039;s remarks were not an admission that 4% was the correct rate, because the real dispute was the proper rate of levy and no refund claim for the differential amount was pressed. The issue was covered by an earlier Rajasthan HC decision holding that the petitioner was liable only at 1%, so the rate was confirmed at 1% in favour of the taxpayer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234009</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>