<?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>1999 (9) TMI 11 - GAUHATI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14501</link>
    <description>Check-post verification of tea movement under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 is limited to examining goods and alternatively specified documents to determine whether tax was paid or properly accounted for. Neither that Act nor the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939 authorised compulsory agricultural income-tax or sales-tax clearance certificates for transit. Rules requiring clearance certificates or multiple documents were inconsistent with the Act and therefore unenforceable to that extent. Subordinate rules could not expand statutory check-post obligations, and the rule-making power did not permit the identified sub-delegation. Section 46(4) did not violate Article 19(1)(g).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53501" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 11 - GAUHATI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14501</link>
      <description>Check-post verification of tea movement under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 is limited to examining goods and alternatively specified documents to determine whether tax was paid or properly accounted for. Neither that Act nor the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939 authorised compulsory agricultural income-tax or sales-tax clearance certificates for transit. Rules requiring clearance certificates or multiple documents were inconsistent with the Act and therefore unenforceable to that extent. Subordinate rules could not expand statutory check-post obligations, and the rule-making power did not permit the identified sub-delegation. Section 46(4) did not violate Article 19(1)(g).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14501</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>