<?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>1984 (3) TMI 355 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154076</link>
    <description>Deduction from taxable turnover based on purchaser declarations depended on production of the prescribed certificate, but such production was not conclusive proof of genuineness. Where the assessing authority had reason to doubt the signature or identity of the signatory, it could compare the disputed signature with departmental records and call for further proof from the assessee. The later statutory requirement of specimen signatures did not apply to the period in question. Mere production of the declarations therefore did not by itself establish entitlement to deduction, although on the facts the assessee&#039;s claim remained protected because the department had no relevant records.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2013 16:50:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171109" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (3) TMI 355 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154076</link>
      <description>Deduction from taxable turnover based on purchaser declarations depended on production of the prescribed certificate, but such production was not conclusive proof of genuineness. Where the assessing authority had reason to doubt the signature or identity of the signatory, it could compare the disputed signature with departmental records and call for further proof from the assessee. The later statutory requirement of specimen signatures did not apply to the period in question. Mere production of the declarations therefore did not by itself establish entitlement to deduction, although on the facts the assessee&#039;s claim remained protected because the department had no relevant records.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154076</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>