<?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 (10) TMI 867 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164650</link>
    <description>Rule 51A of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 permits locking of a Tax Identification Number only on the specific defaults listed in the rule, such as non-payment of tax, penalty or interest, failure to file returns or annual statements, or filing incomplete or incorrect returns. Where the notice was framed under rule 51A but the real grievance concerned alleged breach of exemption and export conditions under the Punjab Exemption and Deferment Rules, 1991, those allegations did not supply the required statutory basis. In the absence of a jurisdictional ground within rule 51A, the TIN lock was unwarranted and unsustainable, though the Department remained free to proceed separately under the relevant law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (10) TMI 867 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164650</link>
      <description>Rule 51A of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 permits locking of a Tax Identification Number only on the specific defaults listed in the rule, such as non-payment of tax, penalty or interest, failure to file returns or annual statements, or filing incomplete or incorrect returns. Where the notice was framed under rule 51A but the real grievance concerned alleged breach of exemption and export conditions under the Punjab Exemption and Deferment Rules, 1991, those allegations did not supply the required statutory basis. In the absence of a jurisdictional ground within rule 51A, the TIN lock was unwarranted and unsustainable, though the Department remained free to proceed separately under the relevant law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164650</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>