<?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>1994 (3) TMI 362 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157537</link>
    <description>Cancellation of registration certificates under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was held unjustified where the department relied only on allegations of bogus sales and misuse of declaration forms. The Court found that the purchasing firms were registered dealers at the relevant time, the ST-XXII declaration forms were not shown to be bogus, and the material on record did not prove that the sales were fictitious. Mere discrepancies in the buyers&#039; records, or an allegation that forms had been issued to others, was insufficient to sustain cancellation under section 7(4). The petitioner could not be penalised for the alleged negligence or irregularities of other dealers, and the cancellation was liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2013 16:26:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (3) TMI 362 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157537</link>
      <description>Cancellation of registration certificates under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was held unjustified where the department relied only on allegations of bogus sales and misuse of declaration forms. The Court found that the purchasing firms were registered dealers at the relevant time, the ST-XXII declaration forms were not shown to be bogus, and the material on record did not prove that the sales were fictitious. Mere discrepancies in the buyers&#039; records, or an allegation that forms had been issued to others, was insufficient to sustain cancellation under section 7(4). The petitioner could not be penalised for the alleged negligence or irregularities of other dealers, and the cancellation was liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157537</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>