<?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 (9) TMI 739 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162168</link>
    <description>A recognition certificate under section 4-B conditioned tax exemption on notified goods being sold in the State, in inter-State trade or commerce, or exported, and despatch of manufactured rice outside the State on consignment basis did not satisfy that requirement. The breach of the certificate conditions was therefore established. The applicable penalty provision for the relevant assessment year prescribed a minimum equal to the tax and a maximum of twice that amount, so a penalty worked out on a three-times basis was inconsistent with the statute. The penalty quantification was required to be reconsidered on the correct year-specific legal footing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2014 12:50:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346611" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 739 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162168</link>
      <description>A recognition certificate under section 4-B conditioned tax exemption on notified goods being sold in the State, in inter-State trade or commerce, or exported, and despatch of manufactured rice outside the State on consignment basis did not satisfy that requirement. The breach of the certificate conditions was therefore established. The applicable penalty provision for the relevant assessment year prescribed a minimum equal to the tax and a maximum of twice that amount, so a penalty worked out on a three-times basis was inconsistent with the statute. The penalty quantification was required to be reconsidered on the correct year-specific legal footing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162168</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>