<?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>1959 (2) TMI 25 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127854</link>
    <description>A sales-tax exemption conditioned on furnishing a declaration in the prescribed form and manner requires strict compliance: proof that the form was once issued does not replace actual production of the form. Secondary evidence, hardship from loss, or oral or documentary substitutes cannot satisfy the statutory condition precedent. Powers to summon dealers or records under section 21-A do not override that substantive requirement or create a right to duplicate declarations. The proviso was also treated as a permissible regulatory safeguard aimed at preventing misuse of exemption and protecting revenue, and the Article 19(1)(g) challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:43:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164729" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (2) TMI 25 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127854</link>
      <description>A sales-tax exemption conditioned on furnishing a declaration in the prescribed form and manner requires strict compliance: proof that the form was once issued does not replace actual production of the form. Secondary evidence, hardship from loss, or oral or documentary substitutes cannot satisfy the statutory condition precedent. Powers to summon dealers or records under section 21-A do not override that substantive requirement or create a right to duplicate declarations. The proviso was also treated as a permissible regulatory safeguard aimed at preventing misuse of exemption and protecting revenue, and the Article 19(1)(g) challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127854</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>