<?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>1986 (3) TMI 297 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102373</link>
    <description>Section 3-AA of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and rule 12-A created a single-point taxation scheme for cotton yarn sales with a rebuttable presumption that sales were to consumers unless the dealer furnished a form III-A certificate for resale. The certificate procedure was a recognised mode of proof, and the taxing authority could examine whether the certificate was genuine or involved collusion. However, the authority could not require the selling dealer to prove the purchaser&#039;s later use of the goods, because subsequent conduct of the purchaser was outside the seller&#039;s burden absent falsity in the certificate. The turnover was therefore treated as not liable to tax on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2015 16:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139422" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (3) TMI 297 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102373</link>
      <description>Section 3-AA of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and rule 12-A created a single-point taxation scheme for cotton yarn sales with a rebuttable presumption that sales were to consumers unless the dealer furnished a form III-A certificate for resale. The certificate procedure was a recognised mode of proof, and the taxing authority could examine whether the certificate was genuine or involved collusion. However, the authority could not require the selling dealer to prove the purchaser&#039;s later use of the goods, because subsequent conduct of the purchaser was outside the seller&#039;s burden absent falsity in the certificate. The turnover was therefore treated as not liable to tax on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>