<?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 (3) TMI 383 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167885</link>
    <description>Deduction of tax at source from works-contract payments under the Assam Value Added Tax Act was treated as a machinery provision tied to the dealer&#039;s tentative tax liability, not as a mechanism for mechanical deduction on the gross bill value. The authority was required to determine taxable turnover in accordance with law, considering the dealer&#039;s standpoint, and recovery could not exceed the amount lawfully due. Any excess deduction was to be adjusted through assessment and refunded promptly. The lower or nil deduction certificate mechanism was upheld as consistent with the statutory scheme, and the Rules were not found to be contrary to the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 14:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373014" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (3) TMI 383 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167885</link>
      <description>Deduction of tax at source from works-contract payments under the Assam Value Added Tax Act was treated as a machinery provision tied to the dealer&#039;s tentative tax liability, not as a mechanism for mechanical deduction on the gross bill value. The authority was required to determine taxable turnover in accordance with law, considering the dealer&#039;s standpoint, and recovery could not exceed the amount lawfully due. Any excess deduction was to be adjusted through assessment and refunded promptly. The lower or nil deduction certificate mechanism was upheld as consistent with the statutory scheme, and the Rules were not found to be contrary to the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167885</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>