https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127955 A dealer could avoid purchase tax under section 10A of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 only by proving a valid election made in the prescribed form, manner and period. The evidence did not establish that any such application had been filed: the alleged acknowledgement was unreliable, the initials did not match the muster roll, the application was not traceable, and the conduct before the assessing and revisional authorities was inconsistent with a genuine election. No valid election was proved, so liability to purchase tax under section 10(a) continued and the challenge to the assessment failed. en-us Wed, 10 Feb 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:41:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127955 A dealer could avoid purchase tax under section 10A of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 only by proving a valid election made in the prescribed form, manner and period. The evidence did not establish that any such application had been filed: the alleged acknowledgement was unreliable, the initials did not match the muster roll, the application was not traceable, and the conduct before the assessing and revisional authorities was inconsistent with a genuine election. No valid election was proved, so liability to purchase tax under section 10(a) continued and the challenge to the assessment failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 10 Feb 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127955