<?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>1981 (1) TMI 228 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152999</link>
    <description>Photostat copies of counterfoils of C declaration forms did not amount to compliance with rule 12(3) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. The Delhi HC held that concessional tax under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is available only when the declaration is furnished in the prescribed manner under section 8(4), and rule 12(3) requires the duplicate declaration process prescribed for lost forms to be strictly followed. Because a mere photostat copy did not satisfy the duplicate-document safeguard or the anti-fraud mechanism built into the rule, the selling dealer was not entitled to concessional taxation on the disputed sales.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:57:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170036" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (1) TMI 228 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152999</link>
      <description>Photostat copies of counterfoils of C declaration forms did not amount to compliance with rule 12(3) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. The Delhi HC held that concessional tax under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is available only when the declaration is furnished in the prescribed manner under section 8(4), and rule 12(3) requires the duplicate declaration process prescribed for lost forms to be strictly followed. Because a mere photostat copy did not satisfy the duplicate-document safeguard or the anti-fraud mechanism built into the rule, the selling dealer was not entitled to concessional taxation on the disputed sales.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152999</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>