https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233981 Deduction for sales against ST-1 forms depended on satisfaction of the statutory condition that the purchasing dealer be registered for the goods sold, and that condition failed where the dealer was not registered for electronic goods; the deduction was therefore disallowed. By contrast, a selling dealer was not guilty of wilful omission merely because it relied on ST-1 declarations honestly believed to be valid, as mere negligence or failure to detect a registration defect was insufficient. Interest under section 27 was confined to tax shown as due in the return and did not run from the date of filing on tax first brought to tax on assessment; interest on assessed tax arose only within the statutory framework. The assessee obtained partial relief. en-us Mon, 06 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Jul 2014 14:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233981 Deduction for sales against ST-1 forms depended on satisfaction of the statutory condition that the purchasing dealer be registered for the goods sold, and that condition failed where the dealer was not registered for electronic goods; the deduction was therefore disallowed. By contrast, a selling dealer was not guilty of wilful omission merely because it relied on ST-1 declarations honestly believed to be valid, as mere negligence or failure to detect a registration defect was insufficient. Interest under section 27 was confined to tax shown as due in the return and did not run from the date of filing on tax first brought to tax on assessment; interest on assessed tax arose only within the statutory framework. The assessee obtained partial relief. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 06 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233981