<?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>2004 (7) TMI 613 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161958</link>
    <description>Interest under section 8(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 is compensatory and applies only where there is default in payment of tax admittedly due, causing revenue loss from delay. Where a dealer had deposited security for release of goods, later adjusted that amount against admitted tax liability under the adjustment mechanism, and the penalty order that had prompted the security was subsequently set aside, the amount was treated as excess money already in the department&#039;s hands. In that situation, the tax could not be regarded as unpaid in a manner justifying compensatory interest, because no actual loss to the revenue arose from the alleged delay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:55:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345700" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 613 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161958</link>
      <description>Interest under section 8(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 is compensatory and applies only where there is default in payment of tax admittedly due, causing revenue loss from delay. Where a dealer had deposited security for release of goods, later adjusted that amount against admitted tax liability under the adjustment mechanism, and the penalty order that had prompted the security was subsequently set aside, the amount was treated as excess money already in the department&#039;s hands. In that situation, the tax could not be regarded as unpaid in a manner justifying compensatory interest, because no actual loss to the revenue arose from the alleged delay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161958</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>