Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3301 to 3320 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 11(6) of the VAT Act cannot be read as authorising a State to curtail reimbursement of tax on declared goods in a manner inconsistent with Article 286(3) of the Constitution and section 15(b) of the CST Act. The Gujarat HC, following Hides and Skin Owners Seva Mandal, treated Kadwani Forge Ltd. as sub silentio on transactions where goods purchased and sold were both declared goods. The notification was therefore upheld in general, but held inapplicable to declared goods such as coke bought within the State and resold in inter-State trade and commerce, requiring full input tax credit and rendering the show cause notice unsustainable.
Section 11(6) of the VAT Act cannot be read as authorising a State to curtail reimbursement of tax on declared goods in a manner inconsistent with Article 286(3) of the Constitution and section 15(b) of the CST Act. The Gujarat HC, following Hides and Skin Owners Seva Mandal, treated Kadwani Forge Ltd. as sub silentio on transactions where goods purchased and sold were both declared goods. The notification was therefore upheld in general, but held inapplicable to declared goods such as coke bought within the State and resold in inter-State trade and commerce, requiring full input tax credit and rendering the show cause notice unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
