https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150049 Rule 27(3) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules was challenged to the extent its proviso required a purchasing registered dealer to prove that the selling registered dealer had paid, or was liable to pay, purchase tax. Section 5(2)(A)(d)(i) read with section 3-B required only proof that the purchase was from a registered dealer in declared goods, and the proviso was found to add a further condition not authorised by the Act. As the Act contemplated single-point taxation and the extra burden could be imposed only by legislation, the proviso was treated as inconsistent with the parent statute and liable to be quashed. en-us Tue, 03 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 May 2013 12:01:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150049 Rule 27(3) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules was challenged to the extent its proviso required a purchasing registered dealer to prove that the selling registered dealer had paid, or was liable to pay, purchase tax. Section 5(2)(A)(d)(i) read with section 3-B required only proof that the purchase was from a registered dealer in declared goods, and the proviso was found to add a further condition not authorised by the Act. As the Act contemplated single-point taxation and the extra burden could be imposed only by legislation, the proviso was treated as inconsistent with the parent statute and liable to be quashed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 03 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150049