<?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>2005 (3) TMI 743 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162926</link>
    <description>Penalty under the unamended section 15A(1)(qq) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act applies only where an amount is realised as sales tax or purchase tax. Amounts collected from buyers as contingent liability refundable, rather than described as tax, did not meet that condition, particularly where surrounding facts supported the dealer&#039;s bona fide belief. The prior dispute concerning the applicable tax rate did not convert the collection into tax realisation. The objection that the State Representative was denied a hearing failed because the representative was present and heard despite rejection of an adjournment request. The Tribunal&#039;s quashing of the penalty was sustained and the revisions were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:51:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348984" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 743 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162926</link>
      <description>Penalty under the unamended section 15A(1)(qq) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act applies only where an amount is realised as sales tax or purchase tax. Amounts collected from buyers as contingent liability refundable, rather than described as tax, did not meet that condition, particularly where surrounding facts supported the dealer&#039;s bona fide belief. The prior dispute concerning the applicable tax rate did not convert the collection into tax realisation. The objection that the State Representative was denied a hearing failed because the representative was present and heard despite rejection of an adjournment request. The Tribunal&#039;s quashing of the penalty was sustained and the revisions were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162926</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>