<?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>1961 (4) TMI 136 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288994</link>
    <description>A writ challenge to a sales tax assessment was not barred by alternative remedy, laches, or acquiescence where the dispute went to the taxing authority&#039;s power and involved an asserted restraint on the right to trade; the delay was explained and mere inclusion of turnover in returns did not amount to waiver or estoppel. On the merits, coal transactions routed through the petitioner were held to be intermediary dealings only: the Colliery Control Order fixed the sale terms, the allotment and delivery stood in the name of the sanctioned buyer, and the petitioner never acquired title in the coal. As no taxable sale by the petitioner was established, sales tax could not be levied on those supplies and the assessment was quashed to that extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2020 11:31:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617007" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (4) TMI 136 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288994</link>
      <description>A writ challenge to a sales tax assessment was not barred by alternative remedy, laches, or acquiescence where the dispute went to the taxing authority&#039;s power and involved an asserted restraint on the right to trade; the delay was explained and mere inclusion of turnover in returns did not amount to waiver or estoppel. On the merits, coal transactions routed through the petitioner were held to be intermediary dealings only: the Colliery Control Order fixed the sale terms, the allotment and delivery stood in the name of the sanctioned buyer, and the petitioner never acquired title in the coal. As no taxable sale by the petitioner was established, sales tax could not be levied on those supplies and the assessment was quashed to that extent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288994</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>