<?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>1972 (1) TMI 85 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150159</link>
    <description>A registration certificate under section 7 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was treated as relating back to the date of the dealer&#039;s application where the application was duly made, the authority caused the delay in issuance, and the statute contained no clear contrary mandate. The later amendment to rule 5 was regarded as clarificatory. On that basis, a sale made while the registration application was pending was treated as a sale to a registered dealer, the declaration under section 5(2)(a)(ii) remained effective, and the assessee was entitled to the deduction. The adverse orders were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 14:59:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167200" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (1) TMI 85 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150159</link>
      <description>A registration certificate under section 7 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was treated as relating back to the date of the dealer&#039;s application where the application was duly made, the authority caused the delay in issuance, and the statute contained no clear contrary mandate. The later amendment to rule 5 was regarded as clarificatory. On that basis, a sale made while the registration application was pending was treated as a sale to a registered dealer, the declaration under section 5(2)(a)(ii) remained effective, and the assessee was entitled to the deduction. The adverse orders were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150159</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>