<?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 (11) TMI 991 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160986</link>
    <description>Section 15B of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act was construed to apply where taxable raw materials are used in manufacturing goods, and exemption of the finished goods under section 49(2) does not negate the purchase-tax levy because exemption is only a forbearance from tax. On that interpretation, liability under section 15B remained attached to the assessee despite exemption on the final products. By contrast, provisional assessment notices under section 41B required a basis of tax evasion, and the assessee&#039;s non-payment stemmed from a bona fide view of non-liability supported by prior interpretation and departmental practice. The notices were therefore quashed for want of jurisdictional foundation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2013 17:57:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341018" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (11) TMI 991 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160986</link>
      <description>Section 15B of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act was construed to apply where taxable raw materials are used in manufacturing goods, and exemption of the finished goods under section 49(2) does not negate the purchase-tax levy because exemption is only a forbearance from tax. On that interpretation, liability under section 15B remained attached to the assessee despite exemption on the final products. By contrast, provisional assessment notices under section 41B required a basis of tax evasion, and the assessee&#039;s non-payment stemmed from a bona fide view of non-liability supported by prior interpretation and departmental practice. The notices were therefore quashed for want of jurisdictional foundation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160986</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>