<?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>1998 (7) TMI 660 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159830</link>
    <description>For turnover tax under section 4AAA of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, the general definition of &quot;turnover&quot; in section 2(e) was treated as continuing to apply, subject to the specific deductions in section 4AAA(2); on that interpretation, the sales tax element was deductible from sale price and its omission did not justify a reassessment notice under section 9A(2)(b). The commentary also notes that section 9A was not regarded as ultra vires, because the deemed assessment and reopening machinery provided hearing safeguards and the penalty provision was not meant to operate mechanically for a bona fide legal dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:28:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337916" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 660 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159830</link>
      <description>For turnover tax under section 4AAA of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, the general definition of &quot;turnover&quot; in section 2(e) was treated as continuing to apply, subject to the specific deductions in section 4AAA(2); on that interpretation, the sales tax element was deductible from sale price and its omission did not justify a reassessment notice under section 9A(2)(b). The commentary also notes that section 9A was not regarded as ultra vires, because the deemed assessment and reopening machinery provided hearing safeguards and the penalty provision was not meant to operate mechanically for a bona fide legal dispute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159830</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>