<?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 (2) TMI 778 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164396</link>
    <description>Coated abrasives such as silicon carbide paper and emery paper were analysed under the West Bengal VAT Schedule by applying common parlance and ordinary use. They were treated as hand tools for carpentry and masonry under entry 83(f), not as power tools under entry 83(a) and not as &quot;paper&quot; under entry 53, because the goods were not power-driven tools and did not answer the commercial meaning of paper. The document also states that a tax demand for alleged short payment could not be enforced without a formal assessment, even if Central Section officers had jurisdiction to act as assessing authority. The impugned demand direction was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353731" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 778 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164396</link>
      <description>Coated abrasives such as silicon carbide paper and emery paper were analysed under the West Bengal VAT Schedule by applying common parlance and ordinary use. They were treated as hand tools for carpentry and masonry under entry 83(f), not as power tools under entry 83(a) and not as &quot;paper&quot; under entry 53, because the goods were not power-driven tools and did not answer the commercial meaning of paper. The document also states that a tax demand for alleged short payment could not be enforced without a formal assessment, even if Central Section officers had jurisdiction to act as assessing authority. The impugned demand direction was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164396</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>