<?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>1990 (1) TMI 287 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156161</link>
    <description>Under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, a dealer may discharge the burden of proving that inter-State movement of goods was by transfer and not by sale by producing form F or other relevant evidence. Once form F is furnished, the assessing authority&#039;s function is to enquire fairly into the truth and reliability of the declaration, not to insist mechanically on every document mentioned in rule 5A. Here, the assessment was rejected solely because certain accompanying documents were not produced, without examining whether the declarations were true. The assessment orders were therefore unsustainable for non-application of mind and were quashed, with the matter remitted for fresh assessment after hearing the dealer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:26:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173188" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (1) TMI 287 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156161</link>
      <description>Under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, a dealer may discharge the burden of proving that inter-State movement of goods was by transfer and not by sale by producing form F or other relevant evidence. Once form F is furnished, the assessing authority&#039;s function is to enquire fairly into the truth and reliability of the declaration, not to insist mechanically on every document mentioned in rule 5A. Here, the assessment was rejected solely because certain accompanying documents were not produced, without examining whether the declarations were true. The assessment orders were therefore unsustainable for non-application of mind and were quashed, with the matter remitted for fresh assessment after hearing the dealer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156161</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>