<?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>2022 (5) TMI 73 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421813</link>
    <description>Bond-to-bond sales of warehoused goods under the Maharashtra VAT liquor scheme were described as taxable only at the first point of sale, so a further levy on the petitioner was treated as contrary to the statutory notification structure and without authority. The text also states that the transaction remained governed by the law in force on the sale date, with Hotel Ashoka controlling; later views in Nirmalkumar Parsan and Radhasons International were not applied to alter that completed transaction. It further notes that taxing the same goods again, after tax had already been paid and accepted on the earlier sale, amounted to double taxation, and writ relief was available despite an alternate remedy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2025 13:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=677858" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 73 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421813</link>
      <description>Bond-to-bond sales of warehoused goods under the Maharashtra VAT liquor scheme were described as taxable only at the first point of sale, so a further levy on the petitioner was treated as contrary to the statutory notification structure and without authority. The text also states that the transaction remained governed by the law in force on the sale date, with Hotel Ashoka controlling; later views in Nirmalkumar Parsan and Radhasons International were not applied to alter that completed transaction. It further notes that taxing the same goods again, after tax had already been paid and accepted on the earlier sale, amounted to double taxation, and writ relief was available despite an alternate remedy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421813</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>