<?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 (4) TMI 376 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158185</link>
    <description>Production of form F under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act shifts the burden to the assessee to show that goods moved to out-of-State depots were transferred otherwise than by sale, but the declaration can be displaced only if the particulars are found false or incorrect after enquiry. On the recorded facts, despatches to depots were made without reference to identified buyers, goods were stored at depots and then sold there, and no factual error in the findings was established; the movement was therefore treated as not occasioned by inter-State sales. The notification under section 8(5) was also held applicable to the transactions, and interest was not sustainable on the statutory setting considered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:56:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=330122" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (4) TMI 376 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158185</link>
      <description>Production of form F under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act shifts the burden to the assessee to show that goods moved to out-of-State depots were transferred otherwise than by sale, but the declaration can be displaced only if the particulars are found false or incorrect after enquiry. On the recorded facts, despatches to depots were made without reference to identified buyers, goods were stored at depots and then sold there, and no factual error in the findings was established; the movement was therefore treated as not occasioned by inter-State sales. The notification under section 8(5) was also held applicable to the transactions, and interest was not sustainable on the statutory setting considered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>