<?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>1964 (8) TMI 49 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99836</link>
    <description>A State rule on C Forms under the Central Sales Tax regime binds only dealers within that State and cannot be used to defeat concessional tax treatment for inter-State sales by imposing a procedural requirement on purchasers in another State. The Madras rule requiring a separate C Form for each sale transaction was held inapplicable to purchasing dealers in Punjab, because the relevant statutory scheme required compliance with the Act and the rules governing the purchaser&#039;s own State. Where the assessee furnished C Forms in the manner required by the Act and the Punjab rules, the concessional rate of tax could not be denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136888" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (8) TMI 49 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99836</link>
      <description>A State rule on C Forms under the Central Sales Tax regime binds only dealers within that State and cannot be used to defeat concessional tax treatment for inter-State sales by imposing a procedural requirement on purchasers in another State. The Madras rule requiring a separate C Form for each sale transaction was held inapplicable to purchasing dealers in Punjab, because the relevant statutory scheme required compliance with the Act and the rules governing the purchaser&#039;s own State. Where the assessee furnished C Forms in the manner required by the Act and the Punjab rules, the concessional rate of tax could not be denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99836</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>