<?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 97 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150916</link>
    <description>Section 6A of the Bihar Sales Tax Act allowed concessional tax on sales to a registered dealer holding the prescribed certificate and declaration, and the rules did not require the certificate to take effect only from the date of actual issue. Rule 4A(5)(a) made the clause (b) certificate co-terminus with the purchaser&#039;s registration, while rule 4A(5)(b) separately confined clause (c) certificates to the date of issue. The later issue of the supporting certificate did not defeat the concession, because rule 8A governed proof of the claim and not its substantive availability. The concession was therefore admissible from 1 November 1962, not merely from 14 December 1962.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:29:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167955" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (9) TMI 97 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150916</link>
      <description>Section 6A of the Bihar Sales Tax Act allowed concessional tax on sales to a registered dealer holding the prescribed certificate and declaration, and the rules did not require the certificate to take effect only from the date of actual issue. Rule 4A(5)(a) made the clause (b) certificate co-terminus with the purchaser&#039;s registration, while rule 4A(5)(b) separately confined clause (c) certificates to the date of issue. The later issue of the supporting certificate did not defeat the concession, because rule 8A governed proof of the claim and not its substantive availability. The concession was therefore admissible from 1 November 1962, not merely from 14 December 1962.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150916</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>