<?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>1976 (3) TMI 189 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101215</link>
    <description>A sale by the assessee that does not itself occasion inter-State movement of goods is treated as a sale during movement under section 3(b), not an inter-State sale under section 3(a), so the transaction remains taxable by the State authorities. Exemption under the Government Order issued under section 8(5) was unavailable because the assessee had not itself suffered the local sales tax levy, and payment by the mills did not satisfy that condition. Exemption under section 6(2) also failed because the statutory certificate requirements and proof of purchase by a registered dealer were not established. The Tribunal&#039;s purported rectification under section 55 exceeded its limited power and could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (3) TMI 189 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101215</link>
      <description>A sale by the assessee that does not itself occasion inter-State movement of goods is treated as a sale during movement under section 3(b), not an inter-State sale under section 3(a), so the transaction remains taxable by the State authorities. Exemption under the Government Order issued under section 8(5) was unavailable because the assessee had not itself suffered the local sales tax levy, and payment by the mills did not satisfy that condition. Exemption under section 6(2) also failed because the statutory certificate requirements and proof of purchase by a registered dealer were not established. The Tribunal&#039;s purported rectification under section 55 exceeded its limited power and could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101215</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>