<?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>2008 (8) TMI 843 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164302</link>
    <description>Under the composition scheme in section 7D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, liability remained governed by the scheme&#039;s terms, including agreed coal quantity limits, and excess import could still attract tax. Where an assessment was considered defective as to the relevant period or scope, the proper course was not wholesale annulment but fresh consideration, restricted sustenance, or remand for clarification. The Tribunal&#039;s approach in setting aside the entire assessment on the basis of an alleged impermissible period, and in treating coal consumed in brick manufacture as outside taxability despite the scheme conditions, was stated to be erroneous. The matter required reconsideration after hearing both sides.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2014 19:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 843 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164302</link>
      <description>Under the composition scheme in section 7D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, liability remained governed by the scheme&#039;s terms, including agreed coal quantity limits, and excess import could still attract tax. Where an assessment was considered defective as to the relevant period or scope, the proper course was not wholesale annulment but fresh consideration, restricted sustenance, or remand for clarification. The Tribunal&#039;s approach in setting aside the entire assessment on the basis of an alleged impermissible period, and in treating coal consumed in brick manufacture as outside taxability despite the scheme conditions, was stated to be erroneous. The matter required reconsideration after hearing both sides.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164302</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>