<?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>1991 (7) TMI 343 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157206</link>
    <description>Once a selling dealer furnishes a valid Form XVII declaration for concessional tax under section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the concession cannot be denied by questioning whether the declared end use was correct or whether the goods were in fact a component part of the finished product. The statutory scheme places the burden of any false or wrong declaration on the purchasing dealer, and later amendments confirming purchaser liability reinforce that the seller need not verify the truth of the declaration beyond its prescribed form. The tribunal&#039;s view was therefore affirmed and the revision to deny the concession failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2013 16:11:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174231" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (7) TMI 343 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157206</link>
      <description>Once a selling dealer furnishes a valid Form XVII declaration for concessional tax under section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the concession cannot be denied by questioning whether the declared end use was correct or whether the goods were in fact a component part of the finished product. The statutory scheme places the burden of any false or wrong declaration on the purchasing dealer, and later amendments confirming purchaser liability reinforce that the seller need not verify the truth of the declaration beyond its prescribed form. The tribunal&#039;s view was therefore affirmed and the revision to deny the concession failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>