<?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 (4) TMI 870 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164252</link>
    <description>A taxing notification granting concessional inter-State sales treatment was construed strictly, and an express exclusion in the later notification barred the dealer from also claiming partial exemption under an earlier notification for the same assessment year. The court stated that departmental circulars cannot alter the scope of the notification, prior assessment practice does not create an enforceable right against the statute, and there is no estoppel or equity against a taxing provision. On that plain reading, the assessee could not combine benefits inconsistent with the later notification&#039;s condition, and the denial of partial exemption was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353427" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 870 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164252</link>
      <description>A taxing notification granting concessional inter-State sales treatment was construed strictly, and an express exclusion in the later notification barred the dealer from also claiming partial exemption under an earlier notification for the same assessment year. The court stated that departmental circulars cannot alter the scope of the notification, prior assessment practice does not create an enforceable right against the statute, and there is no estoppel or equity against a taxing provision. On that plain reading, the assessee could not combine benefits inconsistent with the later notification&#039;s condition, and the denial of partial exemption was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164252</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>