<?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>1974 (9) TMI 95 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150884</link>
    <description>A concessional sales tax notification did not require the prescribed certificate to be filed before the assessing officer as a condition for the concession. The appellate authority could admit corrected certificates under its wide power of further inquiry and additional evidence, especially where the assessee had originally produced certificates, later obtained corrected ones from government departments, and acted with due diligence and good faith. The Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act supported this approach, and the position under section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act was distinguishable because that provision expressly required filing before the prescribed authority. The certificates were therefore wrongly rejected, and their acceptance in appeal was justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 13:01:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167924" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (9) TMI 95 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150884</link>
      <description>A concessional sales tax notification did not require the prescribed certificate to be filed before the assessing officer as a condition for the concession. The appellate authority could admit corrected certificates under its wide power of further inquiry and additional evidence, especially where the assessee had originally produced certificates, later obtained corrected ones from government departments, and acted with due diligence and good faith. The Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act supported this approach, and the position under section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act was distinguishable because that provision expressly required filing before the prescribed authority. The certificates were therefore wrongly rejected, and their acceptance in appeal was justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150884</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>