<?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>2015 (5) TMI 882 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260008</link>
    <description>The amended valuation mechanism under Rule 58 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, including the stage-wise method in Rule 58(1B), the land-deduction formula in Rule 58(1A) and the clarificatory trade circulars, was treated as a valid measure and machinery provision for valuing the taxable component in works contracts. The Court held that a taxing rule may adopt a uniform and convenient computation method so long as it bears a rational nexus with the taxable event and does not change the subject of tax. The additional proviso allowing proof of higher actual land cost was also upheld, and the absence of previous publication did not vitiate the amendment because the requirement had been lawfully dispensed with in urgency.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2016 12:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=386215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 882 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260008</link>
      <description>The amended valuation mechanism under Rule 58 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, including the stage-wise method in Rule 58(1B), the land-deduction formula in Rule 58(1A) and the clarificatory trade circulars, was treated as a valid measure and machinery provision for valuing the taxable component in works contracts. The Court held that a taxing rule may adopt a uniform and convenient computation method so long as it bears a rational nexus with the taxable event and does not change the subject of tax. The additional proviso allowing proof of higher actual land cost was also upheld, and the absence of previous publication did not vitiate the amendment because the requirement had been lawfully dispensed with in urgency.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260008</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>