<?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 (8) TMI 502 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159416</link>
    <description>A transporter may be treated as a casual trader only to the limited extent of being required to disclose consignor or consignee particulars, and that obligation was held valid but not enforceable until the prescribed mode of disclosure is available. The deemed-sale explanation under section 11(1) and the connected advance-tax, security, detention, seizure and penalty machinery were struck down as unconstitutional in their application to transporters because they used a legal fiction to impose tax on transport activity rather than on an actual taxable sale. By contrast, the purchase-tax machinery under section 14 and rule 189 was upheld, as liability depends on proof of an actual purchase. Service of assessment or demand notices on drivers or persons in charge of goods vehicles was held invalid where the transporter was not otherwise liable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:46:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336976" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 502 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159416</link>
      <description>A transporter may be treated as a casual trader only to the limited extent of being required to disclose consignor or consignee particulars, and that obligation was held valid but not enforceable until the prescribed mode of disclosure is available. The deemed-sale explanation under section 11(1) and the connected advance-tax, security, detention, seizure and penalty machinery were struck down as unconstitutional in their application to transporters because they used a legal fiction to impose tax on transport activity rather than on an actual taxable sale. By contrast, the purchase-tax machinery under section 14 and rule 189 was upheld, as liability depends on proof of an actual purchase. Service of assessment or demand notices on drivers or persons in charge of goods vehicles was held invalid where the transporter was not otherwise liable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159416</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>