<?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>2003 (6) TMI 454 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161660</link>
    <description>Security for tax realisation under the Central Sales Tax Act could be demanded only by the registering authority, on individual consideration, by written order for recorded reasons and after hearing the affected party; it could not be imposed mechanically through general administrative directions. The High Court held that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue confidential instructions to check-post officers to demand and fix security for inter-State stock transfer goods, particularly where the transactions were not taxable under that Act. The impugned circulars and orders were therefore illegal and without jurisdiction, and the demand and collection of security based on them were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2014 16:41:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344834" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 454 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161660</link>
      <description>Security for tax realisation under the Central Sales Tax Act could be demanded only by the registering authority, on individual consideration, by written order for recorded reasons and after hearing the affected party; it could not be imposed mechanically through general administrative directions. The High Court held that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue confidential instructions to check-post officers to demand and fix security for inter-State stock transfer goods, particularly where the transactions were not taxable under that Act. The impugned circulars and orders were therefore illegal and without jurisdiction, and the demand and collection of security based on them were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>