<?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 (12) TMI 312 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156785</link>
    <description>Absent express statutory power, the sales tax authority could not refuse issuance of Form F under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 merely on revenue apprehensions or alleged misuse. The Act and Rules required Form F for the relevant statutory process, and where protection against misuse was genuinely needed, the authority had to proceed through the security mechanism provided under sections 7(2A) and 7(3A). Because the petitioner&#039;s request had remained unattended and no security order had been made when the balance forms were withheld, the refusal was held unauthorised and the petitioner was entitled to the remaining forms.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:01:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173811" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (12) TMI 312 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156785</link>
      <description>Absent express statutory power, the sales tax authority could not refuse issuance of Form F under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 merely on revenue apprehensions or alleged misuse. The Act and Rules required Form F for the relevant statutory process, and where protection against misuse was genuinely needed, the authority had to proceed through the security mechanism provided under sections 7(2A) and 7(3A). Because the petitioner&#039;s request had remained unattended and no security order had been made when the balance forms were withheld, the refusal was held unauthorised and the petitioner was entitled to the remaining forms.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156785</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>