<?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 1081 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164093</link>
    <description>The Bombay Sales Tax Act scheme gave the Commissioner power to answer questions under section 52(1) and permitted review under section 52(2) only subject to the prescribed provisos. The text discusses whether an earlier clarification on the taxability of the petitioners&#039; activity could be recalled without following the mandatory statutory procedure, and whether section 52(2A) applied only where the earlier communication had been issued with the Commissioner&#039;s approval. It distinguishes between communications issued with approval and those not so issued: if approval existed, section 52(2A) procedure was required; if not, section 52(2A) did not arise and the petitioners had to be informed accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2014 15:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352570" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1081 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164093</link>
      <description>The Bombay Sales Tax Act scheme gave the Commissioner power to answer questions under section 52(1) and permitted review under section 52(2) only subject to the prescribed provisos. The text discusses whether an earlier clarification on the taxability of the petitioners&#039; activity could be recalled without following the mandatory statutory procedure, and whether section 52(2A) applied only where the earlier communication had been issued with the Commissioner&#039;s approval. It distinguishes between communications issued with approval and those not so issued: if approval existed, section 52(2A) procedure was required; if not, section 52(2A) did not arise and the petitioners had to be informed accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164093</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>