https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150790 Rule 45(3)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules was upheld as a valid exercise of rule-making power and not inconsistent with section 25, because it prescribed a recognised method for proving that goods liable to single-point tax had already suffered tax without excluding other modes of proof. The notices issued on the footing that tax must follow if the prescribed certificate was not produced were unsustainable, because dealers could establish a second sale by oral or documentary evidence and had to be given a fair opportunity to do so. The notices were therefore quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. en-us Thu, 06 Feb 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 May 2013 17:15:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150790 Rule 45(3)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules was upheld as a valid exercise of rule-making power and not inconsistent with section 25, because it prescribed a recognised method for proving that goods liable to single-point tax had already suffered tax without excluding other modes of proof. The notices issued on the footing that tax must follow if the prescribed certificate was not produced were unsustainable, because dealers could establish a second sale by oral or documentary evidence and had to be given a fair opportunity to do so. The notices were therefore quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 06 Feb 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150790