https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128061 Rule 4-A(iv) was construed according to its plain language, and the absence of an express licensing requirement for buyer or seller in clauses (a) and (b) meant cotton purchases by a licensed spinning mill from unlicensed dealers still fell within the taxing provision. The rule was held to be a valid single-point levy mechanism under section 5(ii) because it could operate independently even if some transactions escaped tax. However, turnover for 26 January 1950 to 31 March 1950 was treated as protected by Article 286 and outside the validating legislation, so the section 22 levy could not be enforced for that period. en-us Mon, 14 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:42:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128061 Rule 4-A(iv) was construed according to its plain language, and the absence of an express licensing requirement for buyer or seller in clauses (a) and (b) meant cotton purchases by a licensed spinning mill from unlicensed dealers still fell within the taxing provision. The rule was held to be a valid single-point levy mechanism under section 5(ii) because it could operate independently even if some transactions escaped tax. However, turnover for 26 January 1950 to 31 March 1950 was treated as protected by Article 286 and outside the validating legislation, so the section 22 levy could not be enforced for that period. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 14 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128061