https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365128 The court quashed the Tribunal's order, allowed the revision petitions, and directed the assessing authority to reassess interest under specific provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. It ruled that the revisionist, disputing tax liability from the start, was not liable for interest under Section 8(1) as the tax was not "admittedly payable" and was paid under protest. The court upheld the revisionist's classification as a dealer under the Act, rejecting claims of exemption under Article 285 of the Constitution. Additionally, it deemed the procurement and sales of Opium taxable transactions, dismissing arguments to the contrary. en-us Wed, 08 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Dec 2018 10:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365128 The court quashed the Tribunal's order, allowed the revision petitions, and directed the assessing authority to reassess interest under specific provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. It ruled that the revisionist, disputing tax liability from the start, was not liable for interest under Section 8(1) as the tax was not "admittedly payable" and was paid under protest. The court upheld the revisionist's classification as a dealer under the Act, rejecting claims of exemption under Article 285 of the Constitution. Additionally, it deemed the procurement and sales of Opium taxable transactions, dismissing arguments to the contrary. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 08 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365128