<?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>1966 (9) TMI 119 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145217</link>
    <description>A dealer seeking the concessional inter-State sales tax rate under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 must furnish the prescribed C Form declaration to the assessing authority before completion of assessment. The expression &quot;in the prescribed manner&quot; was read as governing the mode of furnishing the declaration, not as permitting a rule to impose a time-limit inconsistent with the Act. Rule 8(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1957 could not, therefore, be treated as valid to the extent it would deny the statutory concession for late production; however, production for the first time before the revisional authority did not satisfy section 8(4), so the concession was unavailable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:35:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166232" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (9) TMI 119 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145217</link>
      <description>A dealer seeking the concessional inter-State sales tax rate under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 must furnish the prescribed C Form declaration to the assessing authority before completion of assessment. The expression &quot;in the prescribed manner&quot; was read as governing the mode of furnishing the declaration, not as permitting a rule to impose a time-limit inconsistent with the Act. Rule 8(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1957 could not, therefore, be treated as valid to the extent it would deny the statutory concession for late production; however, production for the first time before the revisional authority did not satisfy section 8(4), so the concession was unavailable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145217</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>