<?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>2010 (9) TMI 962 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164842</link>
    <description>The settlement scheme was confined to real, bona fide disputes and could be rejected where the amounts shown as admitted were not in fact admitted or payable. Under the West Bengal sales tax provisions, delayed-payment interest was treated as automatic and not dependent on a prior assessment determination, and the designated authority could verify whether tax, interest and penalty claimed as admitted were truly payable to prevent abuse of the settlement process. The challenge based on absence of hearing also failed because sufficient opportunity had already been afforded and remand would serve no useful purpose. The rejection of the settlement application for non-payment of admitted dues was therefore valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 May 2014 10:33:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354795" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 962 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164842</link>
      <description>The settlement scheme was confined to real, bona fide disputes and could be rejected where the amounts shown as admitted were not in fact admitted or payable. Under the West Bengal sales tax provisions, delayed-payment interest was treated as automatic and not dependent on a prior assessment determination, and the designated authority could verify whether tax, interest and penalty claimed as admitted were truly payable to prevent abuse of the settlement process. The challenge based on absence of hearing also failed because sufficient opportunity had already been afforded and remand would serve no useful purpose. The rejection of the settlement application for non-payment of admitted dues was therefore valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164842</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>