<?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 (8) TMI 654 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163648</link>
    <description>Recreational activities in a water theme park were treated as amusement-based entertainment, not &quot;sports and games&quot;, because they involved rides, wave pools, sliding and similar attractions without competition, skill contests or the essential character of sport. The tribunal held that the pre-amendment Bengal Amusements Act, 1922 therefore applied and the activities remained taxable entertainment for the period before 26 March 2002. It further held that no estoppel barred the levy, as no clear representation by the taxing authority, reliance, or detriment was shown; administrative recognition by another department could not bind tax assessment. The challenge to the assessment was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Apr 2014 18:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351403" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 654 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163648</link>
      <description>Recreational activities in a water theme park were treated as amusement-based entertainment, not &quot;sports and games&quot;, because they involved rides, wave pools, sliding and similar attractions without competition, skill contests or the essential character of sport. The tribunal held that the pre-amendment Bengal Amusements Act, 1922 therefore applied and the activities remained taxable entertainment for the period before 26 March 2002. It further held that no estoppel barred the levy, as no clear representation by the taxing authority, reliance, or detriment was shown; administrative recognition by another department could not bind tax assessment. The challenge to the assessment was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163648</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>