<?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>1988 (4) TMI 435 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196807</link>
    <description>Where sales tax is lawfully imposed after a sale contract has been made, Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 permits the seller to recover the tax from the buyer unless the contract shows a different intention. The document notes that a revised assessment made after a later Supreme Court ruling was treated as within jurisdiction, and that the buyer could not avoid reimbursement merely because the contract had already been worked out or declaration forms had been furnished without prejudice. It also notes that separate interest or compensation on the tax amount was declined where genuine disputes existed, although reimbursement of the tax actually paid was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2017 16:19:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=499910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (4) TMI 435 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196807</link>
      <description>Where sales tax is lawfully imposed after a sale contract has been made, Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 permits the seller to recover the tax from the buyer unless the contract shows a different intention. The document notes that a revised assessment made after a later Supreme Court ruling was treated as within jurisdiction, and that the buyer could not avoid reimbursement merely because the contract had already been worked out or declaration forms had been furnished without prejudice. It also notes that separate interest or compensation on the tax amount was declined where genuine disputes existed, although reimbursement of the tax actually paid was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>