<?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>2000 (1) TMI 811 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104805</link>
    <description>Registration under section 7(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 satisfied the requirement of being registered under that Act for exemption under the notification issued under section 8(5), because the notification required registration under the State sales tax law and the Central Sales Tax Act without limiting eligibility to section 7(1). The SC held that section 7(2) registration is still registration under the Act, even though it is optional for dealers not otherwise liable, and the language of the notification was plain and unambiguous. The eligibility certificate also supported entitlement, so the respondent qualified for the exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 12:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141844" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 811 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104805</link>
      <description>Registration under section 7(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 satisfied the requirement of being registered under that Act for exemption under the notification issued under section 8(5), because the notification required registration under the State sales tax law and the Central Sales Tax Act without limiting eligibility to section 7(1). The SC held that section 7(2) registration is still registration under the Act, even though it is optional for dealers not otherwise liable, and the language of the notification was plain and unambiguous. The eligibility certificate also supported entitlement, so the respondent qualified for the exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104805</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>