<?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>2018 (9) TMI 157 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366421</link>
    <description>The court set aside the impugned notices and orders due to the absence of findings on mens rea and the expiry of the limitation period for one of the petitions. The court also interpreted the term &#039;resell&#039; expansively, concluding that the benefit should go to the dealer. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, and the orders were deemed unsustainable in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2018 06:57:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=533151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 157 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366421</link>
      <description>The court set aside the impugned notices and orders due to the absence of findings on mens rea and the expiry of the limitation period for one of the petitions. The court also interpreted the term &#039;resell&#039; expansively, concluding that the benefit should go to the dealer. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, and the orders were deemed unsustainable in law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366421</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>