<?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>1993 (2) TMI 287 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157039</link>
    <description>Fiscal exemption conditions in a Gujarat sales tax notification were construed by plain language, and the requirement that goods &quot;shall not take place outside the State of Gujarat&quot; was read as qualifying the sale of manufactured goods, not the act of manufacture. On that interpretation, sale of the manufactured goods outside Gujarat breached the undertaking in Form NN and defeated the exemption claim. The article also states that the dealer&#039;s plea of misunderstanding did not justify reduction of penalty under section 45(6), because the form imposed a clear double obligation to use and sell the goods within the State, and the statutory penalty scheme under sections 45(5) and 45(6) supported the Revenue&#039;s position.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:29:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174064" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (2) TMI 287 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157039</link>
      <description>Fiscal exemption conditions in a Gujarat sales tax notification were construed by plain language, and the requirement that goods &quot;shall not take place outside the State of Gujarat&quot; was read as qualifying the sale of manufactured goods, not the act of manufacture. On that interpretation, sale of the manufactured goods outside Gujarat breached the undertaking in Form NN and defeated the exemption claim. The article also states that the dealer&#039;s plea of misunderstanding did not justify reduction of penalty under section 45(6), because the form imposed a clear double obligation to use and sell the goods within the State, and the statutory penalty scheme under sections 45(5) and 45(6) supported the Revenue&#039;s position.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>