<?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>2025 (12) TMI 1547 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784007</link>
    <description>Interest under section 25(4) of the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was held payable where VAT shown as due in returns or a revised return was remitted only after the prescribed time; filing returns without timely payment attracted delayed-payment interest under the statutory scheme. The Bombay HC also rejected the dealer&#039;s reliance on uncertainty over the taxability of HBS/ENA under GST or VAT, holding that such debate did not erase liability where the dealer remained within the VAT regime, had collected VAT, and retained the tax beyond due date. The appellate order sustaining interest was affirmed and the writ petition failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Dec 2025 08:05:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874285" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1547 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784007</link>
      <description>Interest under section 25(4) of the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was held payable where VAT shown as due in returns or a revised return was remitted only after the prescribed time; filing returns without timely payment attracted delayed-payment interest under the statutory scheme. The Bombay HC also rejected the dealer&#039;s reliance on uncertainty over the taxability of HBS/ENA under GST or VAT, holding that such debate did not erase liability where the dealer remained within the VAT regime, had collected VAT, and retained the tax beyond due date. The appellate order sustaining interest was affirmed and the writ petition failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>