<?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 (8) TMI 113 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148378</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled in a tax case regarding the jurisdiction of the State of Madras to tax subsequent inter-State sales. The Court emphasized the importance of compliance with statutory requirements, specifically highlighting the need for a direct link between the Form C certificate and the specific transaction for conferring jurisdiction. The Court found that both conditions of obtaining Form C from the taxing State and in connection with the specific goods involved in the subsequent sale must be met to establish jurisdiction. The case was dismissed due to a lacuna in the proviso to section 9(1) regarding subsequent sales by registered dealers without compliance with section 6(2).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:04:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166418" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (8) TMI 113 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148378</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled in a tax case regarding the jurisdiction of the State of Madras to tax subsequent inter-State sales. The Court emphasized the importance of compliance with statutory requirements, specifically highlighting the need for a direct link between the Form C certificate and the specific transaction for conferring jurisdiction. The Court found that both conditions of obtaining Form C from the taxing State and in connection with the specific goods involved in the subsequent sale must be met to establish jurisdiction. The case was dismissed due to a lacuna in the proviso to section 9(1) regarding subsequent sales by registered dealers without compliance with section 6(2).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148378</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>