<?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 (10) TMI 45 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150590</link>
    <description>Under section 5(1-A) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, the notification-based levy on specified goods was confined to the first stage of sale. The proviso referring to a &quot;registered dealer&quot; was construed purposively to ensure that tax was secured on the first taxable sale, not to require every intermediary seller in the chain to be registered. Subsequent certificates were treated as linking the later sale to the original taxable transaction. On that construction, a later sale of vegetable ghee remained exempt where the goods had already borne first-stage liability, and the proviso could not be used to impose successive taxation because an intervening purchaser was unregistered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 18:52:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167630" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (10) TMI 45 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150590</link>
      <description>Under section 5(1-A) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, the notification-based levy on specified goods was confined to the first stage of sale. The proviso referring to a &quot;registered dealer&quot; was construed purposively to ensure that tax was secured on the first taxable sale, not to require every intermediary seller in the chain to be registered. Subsequent certificates were treated as linking the later sale to the original taxable transaction. On that construction, a later sale of vegetable ghee remained exempt where the goods had already borne first-stage liability, and the proviso could not be used to impose successive taxation because an intervening purchaser was unregistered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>