<?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>2011 (6) TMI 706 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166283</link>
    <description>Vacuum cleaners, sweeping machines, scrubber driers, lawn mowers, high-pressure jet cleaners and ride-on sweeping and scrubbing machines were treated as machinery within item (xxviii) of entry 54B of Part I of Schedule C, because the residuary Schedule CA applies only where no specific or inclusive entry covers the goods. Their use for cleaning did not justify shifting them to the residuary entry. The goods were therefore taxable at 4 per cent under item (xxviii). Interest under section 33 was also held not leviable on the differential demand, as the shortfall arose from an unsustainable classification-based demand rather than from valid unpaid tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:18:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365305" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 706 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166283</link>
      <description>Vacuum cleaners, sweeping machines, scrubber driers, lawn mowers, high-pressure jet cleaners and ride-on sweeping and scrubbing machines were treated as machinery within item (xxviii) of entry 54B of Part I of Schedule C, because the residuary Schedule CA applies only where no specific or inclusive entry covers the goods. Their use for cleaning did not justify shifting them to the residuary entry. The goods were therefore taxable at 4 per cent under item (xxviii). Interest under section 33 was also held not leviable on the differential demand, as the shortfall arose from an unsustainable classification-based demand rather than from valid unpaid tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166283</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>