<?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>2023 (6) TMI 1098 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439524</link>
    <description>The court found the penalty amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed under Section 53 of the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005 to be contrary to the Act and unsustainable. It directed a fresh consideration of the penalty issue by the Commissioner of State Tax. Additionally, the court set aside an order stating that paying the penalty would not grant the petitioner rights as a registered dealer eligible for input tax credit or tax collection, emphasizing the potential impact on the pending appeal against an Assessment Order. The impugned order was set aside, and the Commissioner of State Tax was directed to re-examine the penalty issue and issue a fresh order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jun 2023 08:09:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=717720" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 1098 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439524</link>
      <description>The court found the penalty amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed under Section 53 of the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005 to be contrary to the Act and unsustainable. It directed a fresh consideration of the penalty issue by the Commissioner of State Tax. Additionally, the court set aside an order stating that paying the penalty would not grant the petitioner rights as a registered dealer eligible for input tax credit or tax collection, emphasizing the potential impact on the pending appeal against an Assessment Order. The impugned order was set aside, and the Commissioner of State Tax was directed to re-examine the penalty issue and issue a fresh order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439524</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>