<?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 (9) TMI 321 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157457</link>
    <description>Goods bought against S.T. 17 and S.T. 17A declaration forms could be resold to other manufacturers against similar forms under the statutory scheme, because sections 5C and 5CC operated with overriding effect when their conditions were met and the 13 February 1976 notification, read with rule 15, shifted the tax incidence to the subsequent dealer. The expression &quot;full rate&quot; in the notification was understood as the rate prescribed by law or valid delegated authority, so the concessional rate under sections 5C and 5CC satisfied that requirement. On that construction, the assessee&#039;s sales to manufacturers were in accordance with law and the revisional challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2013 16:58:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174480" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (9) TMI 321 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157457</link>
      <description>Goods bought against S.T. 17 and S.T. 17A declaration forms could be resold to other manufacturers against similar forms under the statutory scheme, because sections 5C and 5CC operated with overriding effect when their conditions were met and the 13 February 1976 notification, read with rule 15, shifted the tax incidence to the subsequent dealer. The expression &quot;full rate&quot; in the notification was understood as the rate prescribed by law or valid delegated authority, so the concessional rate under sections 5C and 5CC satisfied that requirement. On that construction, the assessee&#039;s sales to manufacturers were in accordance with law and the revisional challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157457</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>