<?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>1989 (10) TMI 215 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155893</link>
    <description>A sales tax provision is not vague where it clearly identifies the taxable commodity, the stage of levy, and the person liable to pay tax; on that basis, the levy on paddy at the last purchase in the State was treated as sufficiently certain and consistent with constitutional limits. Exemption from payment of tax does not extinguish the underlying statutory liability, but only suspends collection while the exemption operates, so an exempted unit remains within the class of dealers liable under the Act. Clarificatory instructions requiring scrutiny of transactions on their merits did not curtail statutory discretion, and sales found to be mere paper transactions could be ignored for tax purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:57:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172920" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (10) TMI 215 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155893</link>
      <description>A sales tax provision is not vague where it clearly identifies the taxable commodity, the stage of levy, and the person liable to pay tax; on that basis, the levy on paddy at the last purchase in the State was treated as sufficiently certain and consistent with constitutional limits. Exemption from payment of tax does not extinguish the underlying statutory liability, but only suspends collection while the exemption operates, so an exempted unit remains within the class of dealers liable under the Act. Clarificatory instructions requiring scrutiny of transactions on their merits did not curtail statutory discretion, and sales found to be mere paper transactions could be ignored for tax purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155893</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>