<?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 (9) TMI 260 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154280</link>
    <description>Rule 20-A(1)(v) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, as amended, shifted liability for a Form XII-A declaration furnished on or after 1 January 1974 in respect of goods not covered by the purchaser&#039;s registration certificate away from the selling registered dealer. In that situation, the selling dealer was not liable for the difference between the full rate and the concessional rate of tax; instead, the purchasing dealer bore the prescribed composition fee and the goods could be specified in the registration certificate. On that construction, reassessment and revisional orders demanding differential tax from the seller were inconsistent with the rule and could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Aug 2013 17:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171313" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (9) TMI 260 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154280</link>
      <description>Rule 20-A(1)(v) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, as amended, shifted liability for a Form XII-A declaration furnished on or after 1 January 1974 in respect of goods not covered by the purchaser&#039;s registration certificate away from the selling registered dealer. In that situation, the selling dealer was not liable for the difference between the full rate and the concessional rate of tax; instead, the purchasing dealer bore the prescribed composition fee and the goods could be specified in the registration certificate. On that construction, reassessment and revisional orders demanding differential tax from the seller were inconsistent with the rule and could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154280</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>