<?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>2014 (7) TMI 492 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249455</link>
    <description>Exemption under the 11 August 2000 scheme did not authorise cinema proprietors to collect entertainment tax from viewers and retain it as incentive or grant-in-aid. The earlier 1994 and 1998 Government Orders were compensatory grant-in-aid schemes for cinema hall owners, but the later scheme operated as an exemption for the benefit of cinema-goers and to widen the tax base. Since the charging provision continued to apply, tax collected from viewers remained payable to the Government. The District Magistrate&#039;s direction for separate disclosure in Form B was only for statistical purposes and did not create any right of retention. The demand for deposit was therefore valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=359796" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 492 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249455</link>
      <description>Exemption under the 11 August 2000 scheme did not authorise cinema proprietors to collect entertainment tax from viewers and retain it as incentive or grant-in-aid. The earlier 1994 and 1998 Government Orders were compensatory grant-in-aid schemes for cinema hall owners, but the later scheme operated as an exemption for the benefit of cinema-goers and to widen the tax base. Since the charging provision continued to apply, tax collected from viewers remained payable to the Government. The District Magistrate&#039;s direction for separate disclosure in Form B was only for statistical purposes and did not create any right of retention. The demand for deposit was therefore valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249455</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>