<?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>1953 (12) TMI 17 - NAGPUR HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127382</link>
    <description>A dealer who compounded the offence of non-registration and was later granted a registration certificate was treated, for the relevant sales-tax exclusion, as registered from the commencement of the Act because the statutory fiction in section 8(5) deemed the certificate to take effect as if issued on a valid timely application. However, the word &quot;contract&quot; in the proviso to section 4(1) was held to bear the Act&#039;s special restrictive definition in section 2(b), not its broader general-law meaning, because the proviso was confined to transactions within that statutory definition. The reference was therefore answered partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 11:53:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164259" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1953 (12) TMI 17 - NAGPUR HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127382</link>
      <description>A dealer who compounded the offence of non-registration and was later granted a registration certificate was treated, for the relevant sales-tax exclusion, as registered from the commencement of the Act because the statutory fiction in section 8(5) deemed the certificate to take effect as if issued on a valid timely application. However, the word &quot;contract&quot; in the proviso to section 4(1) was held to bear the Act&#039;s special restrictive definition in section 2(b), not its broader general-law meaning, because the proviso was confined to transactions within that statutory definition. The reference was therefore answered partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127382</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>