<?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 (11) TMI 605 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163660</link>
    <description>Interest under section 8(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was not sustainable where the dealer bona fide disputed tax liability on the basis of a pending exemption claim under section 4A. The dealer had established a new unit and sought exemption, and although the claim had been rejected, its entitlement remained under revision. The Tribunal found, as a matter of fact, that the dispute was genuine and that there was nothing to show the exemption claim lacked bona fides. On that footing, interest on the assessed amount could not be treated as payable on admitted tax, and deletion of the interest demand was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2014 11:00:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351477" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 605 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163660</link>
      <description>Interest under section 8(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was not sustainable where the dealer bona fide disputed tax liability on the basis of a pending exemption claim under section 4A. The dealer had established a new unit and sought exemption, and although the claim had been rejected, its entitlement remained under revision. The Tribunal found, as a matter of fact, that the dispute was genuine and that there was nothing to show the exemption claim lacked bona fides. On that footing, interest on the assessed amount could not be treated as payable on admitted tax, and deletion of the interest demand was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>