https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103485 Octroi was held not leviable where goods were brought into the municipal limits for export and were in fact consumed or used outside those limits; a mere sale within the area did not create liability. Refund could not be refused on the basis of rule 25(3)(d), or for non-production of form 4, original invoices, or complete particulars in the refund forms, because those requirements were treated as procedural and evidentiary rather than substantive preconditions. The rules governing import, export, and refund were intended to secure identification of goods and prevent evasion, not to defeat refund when export was otherwise established, including where goods were broken bulk and repacked. en-us Fri, 22 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103485 Octroi was held not leviable where goods were brought into the municipal limits for export and were in fact consumed or used outside those limits; a mere sale within the area did not create liability. Refund could not be refused on the basis of rule 25(3)(d), or for non-production of form 4, original invoices, or complete particulars in the refund forms, because those requirements were treated as procedural and evidentiary rather than substantive preconditions. The rules governing import, export, and refund were intended to secure identification of goods and prevent evasion, not to defeat refund when export was otherwise established, including where goods were broken bulk and repacked. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 22 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103485