https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162297 A dealer's collection of a 4% surcharge shown in bills against C forms was treated as realisation of Central sales tax, not a mere reimbursement of incidental expenses, because no Central sales tax was legally payable on the transactions. That excess collection therefore fell within the State penalty provision for realising tax as sales tax and attracted penalty under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The Court also held that, by virtue of section 9(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the State penalty machinery applied to Central sales tax matters, and the argument that only the Central Act's penalty provisions could operate was rejected. The revision succeeded and the matter was remanded only for quantification of penalty. en-us Fri, 21 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:02:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162297 A dealer's collection of a 4% surcharge shown in bills against C forms was treated as realisation of Central sales tax, not a mere reimbursement of incidental expenses, because no Central sales tax was legally payable on the transactions. That excess collection therefore fell within the State penalty provision for realising tax as sales tax and attracted penalty under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The Court also held that, by virtue of section 9(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the State penalty machinery applied to Central sales tax matters, and the argument that only the Central Act's penalty provisions could operate was rejected. The revision succeeded and the matter was remanded only for quantification of penalty. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 21 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162297