https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151250 Under the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, the expression "recovered" in rule 42 was construed broadly to include tax recovered by the vendor even where the invoice did not separately show the tax. Rule 45 was treated as setting out general conditions for claims, but sub-clause (c) was read as part of clause (B)(iii) rather than as an independent restriction. That construction preserved the substantive set-off relief and avoided defeating earlier provisions that granted relief where tax had been recovered but not separately disclosed. The claim for set-off was therefore allowable on the rules as construed. en-us Sat, 29 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:48:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151250 Under the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, the expression "recovered" in rule 42 was construed broadly to include tax recovered by the vendor even where the invoice did not separately show the tax. Rule 45 was treated as setting out general conditions for claims, but sub-clause (c) was read as part of clause (B)(iii) rather than as an independent restriction. That construction preserved the substantive set-off relief and avoided defeating earlier provisions that granted relief where tax had been recovered but not separately disclosed. The claim for set-off was therefore allowable on the rules as construed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Sat, 29 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151250