<?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>1985 (1) TMI 299 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154587</link>
    <description>Declaration forms may be withheld from a registered dealer only if the statutory preconditions in rule 8(4)(c) are strictly met, including default in filing returns and accompanying documents and adverse material showing concealment or inaccurate particulars. The power must be exercised by a written order based on relevant material; a mere pending enquiry is insufficient. On the stated facts, withholding ST-1 forms was unjustified because the enquiry had not been completed, assessment was not finalised, and no material showed loss of revenue or conduct warranting refusal. The dealer was entitled to issuance of the forms, while the authority retained power to act later if the rule&#039;s conditions were satisfied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2013 18:33:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171618" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (1) TMI 299 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154587</link>
      <description>Declaration forms may be withheld from a registered dealer only if the statutory preconditions in rule 8(4)(c) are strictly met, including default in filing returns and accompanying documents and adverse material showing concealment or inaccurate particulars. The power must be exercised by a written order based on relevant material; a mere pending enquiry is insufficient. On the stated facts, withholding ST-1 forms was unjustified because the enquiry had not been completed, assessment was not finalised, and no material showed loss of revenue or conduct warranting refusal. The dealer was entitled to issuance of the forms, while the authority retained power to act later if the rule&#039;s conditions were satisfied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154587</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>