<?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 (4) TMI 268 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158534</link>
    <description>The West Bengal sales tax scheme was analysed as a valid anti-evasion framework within the State&#039;s legislative competence, but only to the extent it operated on an actual taxable sale or purchase and with a proper machinery provision before any deeming fiction could fasten liability on transporters as casual traders. The recovery provisions authorising seizure, auction, and related detention were found impermissible where they exceeded the parent Act and lacked adequate safeguards. The advance-tax machinery, related forms, oral demands, blanket notices, and collections through guarantors were also held unlawful. Restitution of amounts collected or secured under the invalid provisions, together with compensation and costs, followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:02:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=333900" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (4) TMI 268 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158534</link>
      <description>The West Bengal sales tax scheme was analysed as a valid anti-evasion framework within the State&#039;s legislative competence, but only to the extent it operated on an actual taxable sale or purchase and with a proper machinery provision before any deeming fiction could fasten liability on transporters as casual traders. The recovery provisions authorising seizure, auction, and related detention were found impermissible where they exceeded the parent Act and lacked adequate safeguards. The advance-tax machinery, related forms, oral demands, blanket notices, and collections through guarantors were also held unlawful. Restitution of amounts collected or secured under the invalid provisions, together with compensation and costs, followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158534</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>