https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158690 Purchase-tax liability on rejected wheat was treated as not shifting to the petitioner because the record did not prove that the wheat had been bought under an order made under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, so the statutory exception in Explanation II to section 3-D(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was not established. In those circumstances, and in light of Government orders and correspondence showing that the purchasing organisation would bear the tax and issue the prescribed declaration, the Regional Food Controller was treated as the relevant first purchaser. The State was also held bound by its assurance, and could not deny the promised tax treatment or refuse the declaration. Form III-C(2) was directed to be issued. en-us Mon, 25 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Oct 2024 14:38:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158690 Purchase-tax liability on rejected wheat was treated as not shifting to the petitioner because the record did not prove that the wheat had been bought under an order made under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, so the statutory exception in Explanation II to section 3-D(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was not established. In those circumstances, and in light of Government orders and correspondence showing that the purchasing organisation would bear the tax and issue the prescribed declaration, the Regional Food Controller was treated as the relevant first purchaser. The State was also held bound by its assurance, and could not deny the promised tax treatment or refuse the declaration. Form III-C(2) was directed to be issued. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Mon, 25 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158690