TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether deduction for sales claimed to have been made to registered dealers could be denied merely because the declaration forms were stolen from the department, when the selling dealer received forms bearing official seal and initials and there was no proof that he knew of the theft or of any defect in the purchasing dealer's status.
Analysis: The statutory benefit under section 27(1)(a)(ii) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 read with rule 21 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 depended on the selling dealer satisfying himself about the genuineness of the purchasing dealer and the declarations. The forms in question carried the seal of the issuing office, the initials of the issuing authority, the name and address of the purchaser, and the alleged registration number. On these facts, the selling dealer could not be treated as negligent merely because the forms later turned out to have been stolen, especially when the department itself had not taken action against the purported purchaser and there was no material to show that the dealer had knowledge of the theft or of any falsity.
Conclusion: Deduction could not be denied on the ground that the declarations were stolen forms, and the issue was answered against the State and in favour of the dealer.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the respondent dealer, and the deduction allowed by the assessing authority as upheld by the Tribunal was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A selling dealer is entitled to the statutory benefit where he receives genuine declarations issued in the ordinary course and there is no ance of knowledge or negligence attributable to him merely because the forms were later found to have been stolen.
TaxTMI 
