https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150162 The proviso to clause (d) of rule 44-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules was considered beyond the rule-making power because it imposed an additional condition for deduction by requiring proof that purchase tax had already been paid on the goods. The statutory scheme under section 3-D levied purchase tax only on first purchases and placed the burden on the dealer to show that a transaction was not a first purchase, without requiring proof of prior tax payment. By adding that requirement, the proviso could undermine the single-point nature of the levy and create unreasonable or anomalous results where tax had not yet been assessed or paid. The proviso was therefore treated as ultra vires and invalid. en-us Mon, 11 Jan 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 May 2013 15:19:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150162 The proviso to clause (d) of rule 44-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules was considered beyond the rule-making power because it imposed an additional condition for deduction by requiring proof that purchase tax had already been paid on the goods. The statutory scheme under section 3-D levied purchase tax only on first purchases and placed the burden on the dealer to show that a transaction was not a first purchase, without requiring proof of prior tax payment. By adding that requirement, the proviso could undermine the single-point nature of the levy and create unreasonable or anomalous results where tax had not yet been assessed or paid. The proviso was therefore treated as ultra vires and invalid. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 11 Jan 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150162