<?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>2007 (12) TMI 438 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163712</link>
    <description>A composition scheme for entertainment tax was treated as an elective method of payment, not a compulsory mode of assessment. Once the scheme stood withdrawn from 22 May 1999, the assessee could not be required to continue under the composition arrangement merely because the formal cancellation order was issued later. For the relevant period, the assessee had filed returns and paid tax on that basis, so the assessing authority had to assess liability by reference to those returns rather than the monthly composition amount. The Tax Board&#039;s order was sustained, and the revision petitions failed because no question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2014 11:42:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351573" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (12) TMI 438 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163712</link>
      <description>A composition scheme for entertainment tax was treated as an elective method of payment, not a compulsory mode of assessment. Once the scheme stood withdrawn from 22 May 1999, the assessee could not be required to continue under the composition arrangement merely because the formal cancellation order was issued later. For the relevant period, the assessee had filed returns and paid tax on that basis, so the assessing authority had to assess liability by reference to those returns rather than the monthly composition amount. The Tax Board&#039;s order was sustained, and the revision petitions failed because no question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163712</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>