<?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>1973 (4) TMI 83 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150251</link>
    <description>A registered dealer purchasing gur for manufacture of khandsari was not liable to purchase tax under the second proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act where the goods were used only for the declared purpose. The proviso applies when goods bought for one stated purpose are diverted to another use; it does not apply where the purchaser uses them exactly as authorised. Liability could not be imposed on the purchaser merely because the registration certificate had been issued in an incorrect form or contrary to the amended statutory restriction. The department&#039;s remedy lay elsewhere, and the tax demand against the purchaser failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 17:20:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167292" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (4) TMI 83 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150251</link>
      <description>A registered dealer purchasing gur for manufacture of khandsari was not liable to purchase tax under the second proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act where the goods were used only for the declared purpose. The proviso applies when goods bought for one stated purpose are diverted to another use; it does not apply where the purchaser uses them exactly as authorised. Liability could not be imposed on the purchaser merely because the registration certificate had been issued in an incorrect form or contrary to the amended statutory restriction. The department&#039;s remedy lay elsewhere, and the tax demand against the purchaser failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150251</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>