https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100441 An appeal under section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 could not be refused merely because the memorandum was not accompanied by the challan of admitted tax, where the tax had already been paid within time and satisfactory proof was produced before the appeal was taken up for consideration. The requirement that the appeal be "entertained" only on proof of payment was construed to apply at the stage of consideration, not filing. Rule 66(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948 was held directory, not mandatory, because it prescribed the challan as one mode of proof but did not exclude other equally satisfactory evidence, such as a certificate of payment. en-us Tue, 12 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 May 2026 11:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100441 An appeal under section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 could not be refused merely because the memorandum was not accompanied by the challan of admitted tax, where the tax had already been paid within time and satisfactory proof was produced before the appeal was taken up for consideration. The requirement that the appeal be "entertained" only on proof of payment was construed to apply at the stage of consideration, not filing. Rule 66(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948 was held directory, not mandatory, because it prescribed the challan as one mode of proof but did not exclude other equally satisfactory evidence, such as a certificate of payment. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Tue, 12 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100441