<?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>1992 (2) TMI 338 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156673</link>
    <description>Goods notified as tax-free could be deducted from a seller&#039;s gross turnover when the prescribed Form I-A declaration was furnished and the notification conditions were satisfied at the time of sale. The seller&#039;s entitlement depended on obtaining the declaration and meeting the certification requirements; it did not extend to monitoring the purchaser&#039;s later use of the goods. Any subsequent diversion or misuse by the purchaser affected the purchaser&#039;s exemption, not the seller&#039;s deduction. The department&#039;s proper remedy was to proceed against the purchasing dealer if the declaration was breached, so the seller could not be taxed merely because the goods were later put to a different use.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173699" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (2) TMI 338 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156673</link>
      <description>Goods notified as tax-free could be deducted from a seller&#039;s gross turnover when the prescribed Form I-A declaration was furnished and the notification conditions were satisfied at the time of sale. The seller&#039;s entitlement depended on obtaining the declaration and meeting the certification requirements; it did not extend to monitoring the purchaser&#039;s later use of the goods. Any subsequent diversion or misuse by the purchaser affected the purchaser&#039;s exemption, not the seller&#039;s deduction. The department&#039;s proper remedy was to proceed against the purchasing dealer if the declaration was breached, so the seller could not be taxed merely because the goods were later put to a different use.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156673</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>