https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152068 Rule 11(4) governing purchase tax set-off was treated as mandatory, but substantial compliance was sufficient where the required particulars were in fact furnished in the returns and the claim was made within time. The only defect was that the information was not placed in a separate printed Form 12. The Bombay HC rejected a hypertechnical refusal of relief, holding that this minor procedural omission did not defeat the set-off when the substantive conditions were met. Authorities relied on by the department were distinguished because they concerned cases where the foundational requirements for relief were not satisfied. The respondents were therefore entitled to set-off. en-us Thu, 17 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:49:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152068 Rule 11(4) governing purchase tax set-off was treated as mandatory, but substantial compliance was sufficient where the required particulars were in fact furnished in the returns and the claim was made within time. The only defect was that the information was not placed in a separate printed Form 12. The Bombay HC rejected a hypertechnical refusal of relief, holding that this minor procedural omission did not defeat the set-off when the substantive conditions were met. Authorities relied on by the department were distinguished because they concerned cases where the foundational requirements for relief were not satisfied. The respondents were therefore entitled to set-off. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 17 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152068