<?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 (1) TMI 72 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=147236</link>
    <description>The phrase &quot;successive dealers&quot; in section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was read in its ordinary sense to cover a series of dealers one after another, including the first dealer or manufacturer-dealer. The article further explains that, for declared goods like sugar, Article 286(3) subjects State sales tax to Parliamentary restrictions under sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, as applied through section 7 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. The earlier U.P. notification was treated as valid but modified to the extent of inconsistency, so the levy could still operate for the last sale within the State.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:07:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (1) TMI 72 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=147236</link>
      <description>The phrase &quot;successive dealers&quot; in section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was read in its ordinary sense to cover a series of dealers one after another, including the first dealer or manufacturer-dealer. The article further explains that, for declared goods like sugar, Article 286(3) subjects State sales tax to Parliamentary restrictions under sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, as applied through section 7 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. The earlier U.P. notification was treated as valid but modified to the extent of inconsistency, so the levy could still operate for the last sale within the State.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=147236</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>