<?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>2004 (2) TMI 678 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163708</link>
    <description>Once liability is compounded under section 3B of the Bihar Entertainments Tax Act, the fixed compounding fee remains payable in full despite temporary closure of cinema shows due to curfew. The compounding scheme makes payment independent of the number of shows actually exhibited, so the proprietor cannot unilaterally claim remission or proportionate deduction absent statutory authority. Where the assessee deducted part of the fixed amount on its own, the authority was entitled to demand the shortfall and impose penalty for breach of the compounding obligation. The remission principle from an excise case was held inapplicable because it did not involve a compounding arrangement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2014 11:11:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351569" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 678 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163708</link>
      <description>Once liability is compounded under section 3B of the Bihar Entertainments Tax Act, the fixed compounding fee remains payable in full despite temporary closure of cinema shows due to curfew. The compounding scheme makes payment independent of the number of shows actually exhibited, so the proprietor cannot unilaterally claim remission or proportionate deduction absent statutory authority. Where the assessee deducted part of the fixed amount on its own, the authority was entitled to demand the shortfall and impose penalty for breach of the compounding obligation. The remission principle from an excise case was held inapplicable because it did not involve a compounding arrangement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163708</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>