<?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>1958 (11) TMI 21 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127878</link>
    <description>Rebate under section 7 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 was available only subject to the prescribed restrictions and conditions, including strict compliance with rule 9 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939. The rules required an application in Form VIII within three months of delivery outside the State, and rule 10 contemplated scrutiny of that application before rebate was granted. Because Form VIII was not filed and the letter relied on did not contain the required particulars, the statutory condition for rebate was not met. The prescribed form was treated as a substantive requirement, not a mere formality, so the rebate claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:17:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164752" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (11) TMI 21 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127878</link>
      <description>Rebate under section 7 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 was available only subject to the prescribed restrictions and conditions, including strict compliance with rule 9 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939. The rules required an application in Form VIII within three months of delivery outside the State, and rule 10 contemplated scrutiny of that application before rebate was granted. Because Form VIII was not filed and the letter relied on did not contain the required particulars, the statutory condition for rebate was not met. The prescribed form was treated as a substantive requirement, not a mere formality, so the rebate claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127878</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>