<?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>1997 (7) TMI 644 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160296</link>
    <description>Turnover tax under section 6B of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was treated as a separate and self-contained levy on gross turnover, distinct from sales tax under sections 4 and 5. The deductions available for sales tax under section 5(2) did not govern liability under section 6B, because the only permissible deductions for turnover tax were those expressly provided in section 6B(2). The phrase &quot;in addition to&quot; in section 6B(1)(a) indicated that turnover tax was an additional impost and was payable even where sales tax liability was reduced to nil. The demand of turnover tax on the retailers was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:49:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339323" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 644 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160296</link>
      <description>Turnover tax under section 6B of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was treated as a separate and self-contained levy on gross turnover, distinct from sales tax under sections 4 and 5. The deductions available for sales tax under section 5(2) did not govern liability under section 6B, because the only permissible deductions for turnover tax were those expressly provided in section 6B(2). The phrase &quot;in addition to&quot; in section 6B(1)(a) indicated that turnover tax was an additional impost and was payable even where sales tax liability was reduced to nil. The demand of turnover tax on the retailers was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160296</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>