https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149795 Rule 12-A was upheld as a valid evidentiary rule for proving that a sale was not to a consumer under section 3-AA, but it could not be applied so rigidly as to reject exemption certificates filed before assessment merely because they were not enclosed with quarterly returns. An appeal could not be treated as incompetent solely because the memorandum initially omitted or misstated the amount of admitted tax paid, since such a defect was capable of clarification and did not destroy the appeal. The writ petitions were maintainable because they raised a challenge to the validity of Rule 12-A, which the statutory authorities could not finally decide. en-us Thu, 08 May 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 May 2013 16:36:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149795 Rule 12-A was upheld as a valid evidentiary rule for proving that a sale was not to a consumer under section 3-AA, but it could not be applied so rigidly as to reject exemption certificates filed before assessment merely because they were not enclosed with quarterly returns. An appeal could not be treated as incompetent solely because the memorandum initially omitted or misstated the amount of admitted tax paid, since such a defect was capable of clarification and did not destroy the appeal. The writ petitions were maintainable because they raised a challenge to the validity of Rule 12-A, which the statutory authorities could not finally decide. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 08 May 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149795