<?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>2000 (1) TMI 957 - Delhi High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160248</link>
    <description>Section 18 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 permits security only to protect proper realisation of tax or the custody and use of statutory forms. The security orders were unsustainable because they were based mainly on a single delay in filing one quarter&#039;s return, despite the dealer&#039;s long registration history, regular returns and tax payments. The authorities also relied on irrelevant considerations, including alleged non-separate charging of tax, increased turnover and office changes, which had no nexus with section 18. The amount of security was found grossly disproportionate to the alleged default, showing non-application of mind; the orders were therefore liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:26:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339068" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 957 - Delhi High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160248</link>
      <description>Section 18 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 permits security only to protect proper realisation of tax or the custody and use of statutory forms. The security orders were unsustainable because they were based mainly on a single delay in filing one quarter&#039;s return, despite the dealer&#039;s long registration history, regular returns and tax payments. The authorities also relied on irrelevant considerations, including alleged non-separate charging of tax, increased turnover and office changes, which had no nexus with section 18. The amount of security was found grossly disproportionate to the alleged default, showing non-application of mind; the orders were therefore liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160248</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>