<?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 (10) TMI 272 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157880</link>
    <description>The M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976 distinguishes between the selling dealer&#039;s duty to declare goods as local goods on the invoice and the purchasing dealer&#039;s liability for entry tax on entry into a local area. Entry tax applies to Schedule II goods entering a local area, while the exemption proviso operates only where the goods are other than local goods and tax has already been paid by the selling registered dealer. Failure by the seller to make the statutory declaration under section 7 attracts penalty, but it does not remove the purchaser&#039;s substantive liability if entry tax remains unpaid. The purchasing dealer therefore remained liable to entry tax, and the contrary view was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:13:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174903" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (10) TMI 272 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157880</link>
      <description>The M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976 distinguishes between the selling dealer&#039;s duty to declare goods as local goods on the invoice and the purchasing dealer&#039;s liability for entry tax on entry into a local area. Entry tax applies to Schedule II goods entering a local area, while the exemption proviso operates only where the goods are other than local goods and tax has already been paid by the selling registered dealer. Failure by the seller to make the statutory declaration under section 7 attracts penalty, but it does not remove the purchaser&#039;s substantive liability if entry tax remains unpaid. The purchasing dealer therefore remained liable to entry tax, and the contrary view was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157880</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>