<?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>2012 (8) TMI 863 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166306</link>
    <description>Where an earlier statute&#039;s definition is incorporated into a later enactment by deliberate cross-reference, repeal of the earlier law does not alter the incorporated meaning; the definition of &quot;dealer&quot; under the Entry Tax Act therefore continued to draw from the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, not the later VAT definition. The penalty issue turned on a bona fide and reasonably debatable question of statutory interpretation: because the assessee consistently contested liability on a genuine legal basis and without dilatory conduct, penalty was not justified merely because tax liability was ultimately sustained. The tax assessments were upheld, but the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:07:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=369764" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 863 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166306</link>
      <description>Where an earlier statute&#039;s definition is incorporated into a later enactment by deliberate cross-reference, repeal of the earlier law does not alter the incorporated meaning; the definition of &quot;dealer&quot; under the Entry Tax Act therefore continued to draw from the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, not the later VAT definition. The penalty issue turned on a bona fide and reasonably debatable question of statutory interpretation: because the assessee consistently contested liability on a genuine legal basis and without dilatory conduct, penalty was not justified merely because tax liability was ultimately sustained. The tax assessments were upheld, but the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166306</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>