<?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>1969 (1) TMI 52 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148444</link>
    <description>For exemption under rule 20-B of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Rules, the decisive requirement was actual deposit of the prescribed exemption fee before, or on the same date as, the application. The treasury chalan was treated only as evidence of deposit, not as the operative act that created payment. On that reading, an application became competent only once the correct amount had been deposited, and filing the chalan later could not shift the effective date of payment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jan 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:45:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166484" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (1) TMI 52 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148444</link>
      <description>For exemption under rule 20-B of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Rules, the decisive requirement was actual deposit of the prescribed exemption fee before, or on the same date as, the application. The treasury chalan was treated only as evidence of deposit, not as the operative act that created payment. On that reading, an application became competent only once the correct amount had been deposited, and filing the chalan later could not shift the effective date of payment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jan 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148444</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>