<?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>2013 (3) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221274</link>
    <description>Under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, a selling dealer claiming deduction on sales supported by ST-1 declarations is required only to verify that the purchaser is a registered dealer and that the goods fall within the registration certificate; the dealer is not required to prove the truthfulness of the purchaser&#039;s declaration or the end-use of the goods unless collusion or forgery is shown. On that basis, deduction could not be denied on mere suspicion or discrepancies in the forms. Penalty for false declarations likewise required proof that the dealer knew, or had reason to believe, the forms were false; mere possession of suspect forms without evidence of procurement, participation, or connivance was insufficient. The denial of deduction and penalty were both set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194630" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221274</link>
      <description>Under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, a selling dealer claiming deduction on sales supported by ST-1 declarations is required only to verify that the purchaser is a registered dealer and that the goods fall within the registration certificate; the dealer is not required to prove the truthfulness of the purchaser&#039;s declaration or the end-use of the goods unless collusion or forgery is shown. On that basis, deduction could not be denied on mere suspicion or discrepancies in the forms. Penalty for false declarations likewise required proof that the dealer knew, or had reason to believe, the forms were false; mere possession of suspect forms without evidence of procurement, participation, or connivance was insufficient. The denial of deduction and penalty were both set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221274</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>