<?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>1968 (4) TMI 40 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100380</link>
    <description>The concessional rate under the Central Sales Tax Act depended on furnishing declarations in the prescribed manner, but the form and contents of those declarations were governed by the Central Government&#039;s rule-making power. A State rule could not, under that subordinate power, impose a further restriction that a single Form C declaration must cover only one transaction, nor could it be applied to purchasing dealers outside the State&#039;s territorial reach. The Madras rule was therefore not validly applicable to the Punjab purchasing dealers, and non-compliance with that requirement could not justify denial of the concessional tax rate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 14 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2025 15:30:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137431" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (4) TMI 40 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100380</link>
      <description>The concessional rate under the Central Sales Tax Act depended on furnishing declarations in the prescribed manner, but the form and contents of those declarations were governed by the Central Government&#039;s rule-making power. A State rule could not, under that subordinate power, impose a further restriction that a single Form C declaration must cover only one transaction, nor could it be applied to purchasing dealers outside the State&#039;s territorial reach. The Madras rule was therefore not validly applicable to the Punjab purchasing dealers, and non-compliance with that requirement could not justify denial of the concessional tax rate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 14 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100380</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>