<?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>2021 (2) TMI 967 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404475</link>
    <description>The Gujarat Value Added Tax framework was applied to hold that tax collected from purchasers could not be retained indefinitely when no assessment order had been passed within the prescribed period. In the absence of completed assessment and without any legally sustainable invocation of the withholding provisions, the authorities had no justification to continue withholding the amount. The court relied on the refund scheme under Section 36, the limitation provisions in Section 34(9) and Section 34(10), and the limited withholding power under Section 39, and concluded that the retention was contrary to the statutory scheme. The dealer was entitled to refund with statutory interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=637275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 967 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404475</link>
      <description>The Gujarat Value Added Tax framework was applied to hold that tax collected from purchasers could not be retained indefinitely when no assessment order had been passed within the prescribed period. In the absence of completed assessment and without any legally sustainable invocation of the withholding provisions, the authorities had no justification to continue withholding the amount. The court relied on the refund scheme under Section 36, the limitation provisions in Section 34(9) and Section 34(10), and the limited withholding power under Section 39, and concluded that the retention was contrary to the statutory scheme. The dealer was entitled to refund with statutory interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404475</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>