https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160262 Rule 54A was upheld as intra vires because it merely elaborated the penalty-avoidance mechanism in section 11E(3) by requiring self-verification of returns and payment of the balance tax by the prescribed date. The challenge to the cut-off date and the rule's validity failed. However, non-compliance with the proviso to section 11E(3) and rule 54A could not, by itself, justify refusal of sales tax permits or declaration forms; refusal was permissible only where the statute otherwise authorised it after an actual tax default. The claim for compensation for detention and transport charges was rejected for want of reliable proof. en-us Thu, 17 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Dec 2013 15:54:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160262 Rule 54A was upheld as intra vires because it merely elaborated the penalty-avoidance mechanism in section 11E(3) by requiring self-verification of returns and payment of the balance tax by the prescribed date. The challenge to the cut-off date and the rule's validity failed. However, non-compliance with the proviso to section 11E(3) and rule 54A could not, by itself, justify refusal of sales tax permits or declaration forms; refusal was permissible only where the statute otherwise authorised it after an actual tax default. The claim for compensation for detention and transport charges was rejected for want of reliable proof. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 17 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160262