Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether purchase tax under section 4(6) was payable notwithstanding that the dealer's registration certificate did not strictly conform to the amended prescribed form.
Analysis: The liability under the amended provision turned on whether the dealer had purchased goods without payment of tax for the purpose stated in section 4(6) and thereafter used them for a different purpose. The registration certificate was only evidentiary of the dealer's status and purpose, and a formal defect or omission in the certificate did not by itself defeat tax liability where the surrounding facts and declarations showed that the statutory conditions were satisfied. The certificate had to be construed in the light of the amended provisions, and the decisive consideration was the actual purchase and subsequent use of the goods, not strict correspondence with the prescribed form.
Conclusion: The dealer was liable to be assessed to purchase tax under the amended section 4(6) despite the defect in the registration certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: For liability under the amended section 4(6), the controlling test is whether there is clear evidence that the dealer purchased goods tax-free for the statutory manufacturing purpose and used them otherwise; a formal defect in the registration certificate does not avoid tax liability.