<?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>1955 (6) TMI 9 - PEPSU HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127371</link>
    <description>In sales tax deductions for sales to registered dealers, the burden of proving the purchaser&#039;s registration was not treated as entirely resting on the assessee where no published list of registered dealers existed and the department could verify registration from its own records. Strict insistence on producing certificates was considered inappropriate where the assessee could not reasonably obtain them. For determining whether a purchaser was a registered dealer, the date of application for registration could be treated as relevant, rather than the later date of issue of the certificate, where the delay in issuance was attributable to the tax authorities and the application preceded the sale.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 10:17:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164248" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (6) TMI 9 - PEPSU HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127371</link>
      <description>In sales tax deductions for sales to registered dealers, the burden of proving the purchaser&#039;s registration was not treated as entirely resting on the assessee where no published list of registered dealers existed and the department could verify registration from its own records. Strict insistence on producing certificates was considered inappropriate where the assessee could not reasonably obtain them. For determining whether a purchaser was a registered dealer, the date of application for registration could be treated as relevant, rather than the later date of issue of the certificate, where the delay in issuance was attributable to the tax authorities and the application preceded the sale.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127371</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>