<?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>1995 (7) TMI 379 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158258</link>
    <description>Serially numbered cash or credit memos required for exemption under Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 had to be read in the context of the full exemption scheme, meaning continuity was required for the accounting year. Repeated monthly resetting of serial numbers was not treated as compliance, because the memo condition was intended to verify that the sales related to goods manufactured by the unit. The argument of substantial compliance was rejected, as the defect was not a minor irregularity in an otherwise continuous annual sequence. The eligibility certificate was therefore not granted and the exemption claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2013 18:38:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=331584" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (7) TMI 379 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158258</link>
      <description>Serially numbered cash or credit memos required for exemption under Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 had to be read in the context of the full exemption scheme, meaning continuity was required for the accounting year. Repeated monthly resetting of serial numbers was not treated as compliance, because the memo condition was intended to verify that the sales related to goods manufactured by the unit. The argument of substantial compliance was rejected, as the defect was not a minor irregularity in an otherwise continuous annual sequence. The eligibility certificate was therefore not granted and the exemption claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158258</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>