<?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>2009 (6) TMI 928 - CENTRAL SALES TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163890</link>
    <description>A belated objection to condonation of delay under the Central Sales Tax Act was treated as unavailable where it was not raised at the condonation stage and would have caused serious prejudice after the assessee had withdrawn High Court revisions. On reassessment, accepted F forms and the statutory deeming effect under section 6A protected branch transfers from reopening absent fraud, misrepresentation, wilful suppression, or lack of jurisdiction; that protection did not extend to turnovers for which F forms were not filed or accepted. The movement of machines supported inter-State sale treatment, while the spare-parts rate issue warranted only partial relief because the higher rate had been applied without proper classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2019 11:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352119" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 928 - CENTRAL SALES TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163890</link>
      <description>A belated objection to condonation of delay under the Central Sales Tax Act was treated as unavailable where it was not raised at the condonation stage and would have caused serious prejudice after the assessee had withdrawn High Court revisions. On reassessment, accepted F forms and the statutory deeming effect under section 6A protected branch transfers from reopening absent fraud, misrepresentation, wilful suppression, or lack of jurisdiction; that protection did not extend to turnovers for which F forms were not filed or accepted. The movement of machines supported inter-State sale treatment, while the spare-parts rate issue warranted only partial relief because the higher rate had been applied without proper classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163890</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>