<?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>1967 (2) TMI 91 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148243</link>
    <description>Section 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 was read as authorising single-point levy in a chain of sales and leaving the selection of that point to the rule-making authority. Rule 15 and its explanation to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955 were construed harmoniously as fixing the normal point of tax collection on the first sale by a registered dealer, without extinguishing the liability of earlier taxable dealers. The court also noted that section 16 preserves liability where registration or payment requirements have not been met. On the facts, the alleged earlier sellers were either exempt dealers or not shown to be dealers within the Act, so no prior taxable sale was established and the assessment was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:12:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166283" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (2) TMI 91 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148243</link>
      <description>Section 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 was read as authorising single-point levy in a chain of sales and leaving the selection of that point to the rule-making authority. Rule 15 and its explanation to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955 were construed harmoniously as fixing the normal point of tax collection on the first sale by a registered dealer, without extinguishing the liability of earlier taxable dealers. The court also noted that section 16 preserves liability where registration or payment requirements have not been met. On the facts, the alleged earlier sellers were either exempt dealers or not shown to be dealers within the Act, so no prior taxable sale was established and the assessment was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148243</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>