<?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 (11) TMI 84 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150917</link>
    <description>Under section 5(2)(a)(iv) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, a selling dealer making sales to an electricity undertaking for use in generation or distribution of electrical energy was not required to prove actual end-use after sale when competent officers of the undertaking issued certificates of intended use. The Court treated those certificates as sufficient evidence of the statutory purpose and held that the seller could not be burdened with monitoring how the goods were ultimately applied, absent collusion or other disqualifying circumstances. On that basis, the disallowance was not justified and the assessee was not required to prove further actual use of the cement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Nov 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:32:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167956" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (11) TMI 84 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150917</link>
      <description>Under section 5(2)(a)(iv) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, a selling dealer making sales to an electricity undertaking for use in generation or distribution of electrical energy was not required to prove actual end-use after sale when competent officers of the undertaking issued certificates of intended use. The Court treated those certificates as sufficient evidence of the statutory purpose and held that the seller could not be burdened with monitoring how the goods were ultimately applied, absent collusion or other disqualifying circumstances. On that basis, the disallowance was not justified and the assessee was not required to prove further actual use of the cement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Nov 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>