<?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 (3) TMI 352 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157209</link>
    <description>Under the Central Sales Tax Act, the concessional rate depended on furnishing the prescribed declaration form, and in its absence the general rate applied. The contract and billing pattern showed that the buyer was responsible for the tax burden and had accepted the concessional rate while leaving the declaration form outstanding. The cause of action did not arise on delivery or payment, but only when the buyer finally refused by letter dated 9 January 1976 to furnish the form, because that refusal breached the contractual obligation to supply it. A suit filed within three years of that refusal was therefore within limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2013 16:20:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (3) TMI 352 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157209</link>
      <description>Under the Central Sales Tax Act, the concessional rate depended on furnishing the prescribed declaration form, and in its absence the general rate applied. The contract and billing pattern showed that the buyer was responsible for the tax burden and had accepted the concessional rate while leaving the declaration form outstanding. The cause of action did not arise on delivery or payment, but only when the buyer finally refused by letter dated 9 January 1976 to furnish the form, because that refusal breached the contractual obligation to supply it. A suit filed within three years of that refusal was therefore within limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>