<?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>2006 (7) TMI 622 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162923</link>
    <description>A State provision governing deduction for declared goods used in works contracts was upheld as intra vires because the constitutional limits on taxing deemed sales, including the restrictions under article 286 and the Central Sales Tax Act, were not shown to be exceeded on the pleaded facts. The challenge failed where no material established that the relevant goods were purchased in inter-State trade or that the provision imposed tax beyond the permissible ceiling on declared goods. A show-cause notice was also sustained because the issuing officer was duly empowered and the notice was treated as one for rectification of a mistake apparent from the record. The writ petition failed in full.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:38:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348981" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 622 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162923</link>
      <description>A State provision governing deduction for declared goods used in works contracts was upheld as intra vires because the constitutional limits on taxing deemed sales, including the restrictions under article 286 and the Central Sales Tax Act, were not shown to be exceeded on the pleaded facts. The challenge failed where no material established that the relevant goods were purchased in inter-State trade or that the provision imposed tax beyond the permissible ceiling on declared goods. A show-cause notice was also sustained because the issuing officer was duly empowered and the notice was treated as one for rectification of a mistake apparent from the record. The writ petition failed in full.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>