<?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>1996 (6) TMI 324 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158868</link>
    <description>A demand for alleged excess sales tax exemption under the 1979 Package Scheme could not stand because the exemption ceiling had to be determined by the eligibility certificate, certificate of entitlement, and the statutory exemption entry, all of which governed the benefit available to the unit. The notional sales tax liability used to monitor the ceiling had already been certified and was undisputed, yet the corporation relied on an incorrect computation and offered no substantiation for the repayment demand with interest. The impugned demand was therefore invalid, and the amount recovered under it was refundable to the petitioners.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:18:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335014" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (6) TMI 324 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158868</link>
      <description>A demand for alleged excess sales tax exemption under the 1979 Package Scheme could not stand because the exemption ceiling had to be determined by the eligibility certificate, certificate of entitlement, and the statutory exemption entry, all of which governed the benefit available to the unit. The notional sales tax liability used to monitor the ceiling had already been certified and was undisputed, yet the corporation relied on an incorrect computation and offered no substantiation for the repayment demand with interest. The impugned demand was therefore invalid, and the amount recovered under it was refundable to the petitioners.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158868</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>