<?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 (9) TMI 89 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150626</link>
    <description>Rule 12(3)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules requires production of form C with form E-1 as the evidentiary mode for claiming exemption under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The rule is valid because section 6(2) exemption depends on satisfaction of statutory conditions, including proof of a subsequent inter-State sale and the relevant description of goods, while section 13(3) permits rules consistent with the Act to implement its purpose. The rule does not add a substantive condition; it only adopts an existing statutory form of proof. The challenge to the rule failed, and the requirement to furnish form C was upheld as valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 15:31:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167666" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (9) TMI 89 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150626</link>
      <description>Rule 12(3)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules requires production of form C with form E-1 as the evidentiary mode for claiming exemption under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The rule is valid because section 6(2) exemption depends on satisfaction of statutory conditions, including proof of a subsequent inter-State sale and the relevant description of goods, while section 13(3) permits rules consistent with the Act to implement its purpose. The rule does not add a substantive condition; it only adopts an existing statutory form of proof. The challenge to the rule failed, and the requirement to furnish form C was upheld as valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150626</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>