<?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>2001 (9) TMI 1087 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160891</link>
    <description>A settlement application under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 was treated as maintainable where it was filed within time and the assessee&#039;s appeal was pending, satisfying the statutory prerequisites for relief. The retrospective amendment to section 7 was found to create hostile discrimination by denying refund to taxpayers who had already paid the disputed tax while continuing to extend settlement benefits to similarly placed taxpayers who had paid nothing, and it was therefore held unconstitutional under Article 14. Promissory estoppel was also rejected because the claim arose from a statutory scheme and no independent governmental representation was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:40:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340847" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 1087 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160891</link>
      <description>A settlement application under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 was treated as maintainable where it was filed within time and the assessee&#039;s appeal was pending, satisfying the statutory prerequisites for relief. The retrospective amendment to section 7 was found to create hostile discrimination by denying refund to taxpayers who had already paid the disputed tax while continuing to extend settlement benefits to similarly placed taxpayers who had paid nothing, and it was therefore held unconstitutional under Article 14. Promissory estoppel was also rejected because the claim arose from a statutory scheme and no independent governmental representation was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160891</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>