<?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>1971 (9) TMI 162 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100770</link>
    <description>Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act permits a State Government to grant concessional tax treatment for inter-State sales subject to conditions imposed in the notification. The notifications at issue validly required declarations within a prescribed time, because they attached conditions to a concession rather than taking away an existing statutory right. Failure to produce declarations within time for Goa sales, and failure to produce declarations at all for Pondicherry sales, meant the dealer did not satisfy the conditions for the lower rate. The higher-rate assessment was therefore sustained, and factual difficulty in obtaining compliance did not create a right to the concession without meeting the notification requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2014 12:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137820" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (9) TMI 162 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100770</link>
      <description>Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act permits a State Government to grant concessional tax treatment for inter-State sales subject to conditions imposed in the notification. The notifications at issue validly required declarations within a prescribed time, because they attached conditions to a concession rather than taking away an existing statutory right. Failure to produce declarations within time for Goa sales, and failure to produce declarations at all for Pondicherry sales, meant the dealer did not satisfy the conditions for the lower rate. The higher-rate assessment was therefore sustained, and factual difficulty in obtaining compliance did not create a right to the concession without meeting the notification requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100770</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>