<?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 (8) TMI 1080 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164018</link>
    <description>A sales tax exemption notification covering the whole tax on gold bullion sales to SEEPZ units was held to extend to purchase tax as well, so the demand on gold purchased from MMTC was set aside. Purchase tax on a vehicle bought as a capital asset was upheld because the record did not show the seller was not a dealer and the transitional protection under section 16(4) was unavailable without strict compliance with the written objection requirement. Interest was set aside for the gold transaction and recomputed only for the vehicle, the concealment-type penalty under section 36(2)(c) failed for disclosed particulars, and the separate penalty under section 36(4A) was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2014 20:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352406" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1080 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164018</link>
      <description>A sales tax exemption notification covering the whole tax on gold bullion sales to SEEPZ units was held to extend to purchase tax as well, so the demand on gold purchased from MMTC was set aside. Purchase tax on a vehicle bought as a capital asset was upheld because the record did not show the seller was not a dealer and the transitional protection under section 16(4) was unavailable without strict compliance with the written objection requirement. Interest was set aside for the gold transaction and recomputed only for the vehicle, the concealment-type penalty under section 36(2)(c) failed for disclosed particulars, and the separate penalty under section 36(4A) was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164018</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>