<?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>1968 (10) TMI 94 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148526</link>
    <description>A sales tax exemption notification for biris was treated as strictly conditional on proof that the additional Central excise duty had been paid and that such proof was furnished to the assessing authority. The exemption did not arise unless that condition was satisfied, and the earlier 1956 notification was not displaced where the later notification&#039;s requirements were unmet. On that construction, the later notification operated only when its own conditions existed, leaving the earlier notification to govern turnover otherwise. The result was that unconditional exemption was unavailable under the later notification, and the references were answered in favour of the revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:18:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166566" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (10) TMI 94 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148526</link>
      <description>A sales tax exemption notification for biris was treated as strictly conditional on proof that the additional Central excise duty had been paid and that such proof was furnished to the assessing authority. The exemption did not arise unless that condition was satisfied, and the earlier 1956 notification was not displaced where the later notification&#039;s requirements were unmet. On that construction, the later notification operated only when its own conditions existed, leaving the earlier notification to govern turnover otherwise. The result was that unconditional exemption was unavailable under the later notification, and the references were answered in favour of the revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148526</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>