<?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>1996 (2) TMI 514 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158954</link>
    <description>Rules framed under delegated power are subordinate to the parent statute and cannot override, curtail, or control its substantive provisions. Applied to rule 20-B of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, the settled principle is that where section 7(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 governs the rights and liabilities, the statutory provision must prevail and the inconsistent rule cannot defeat it. On that basis, the Tribunal&#039;s view that rule 20-B did not bar levy at the concessional rate under section 7(2) was treated as disclosing no error of law, and no referable question of law arose for a reference under section 44(2).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:41:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335282" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 514 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158954</link>
      <description>Rules framed under delegated power are subordinate to the parent statute and cannot override, curtail, or control its substantive provisions. Applied to rule 20-B of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, the settled principle is that where section 7(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 governs the rights and liabilities, the statutory provision must prevail and the inconsistent rule cannot defeat it. On that basis, the Tribunal&#039;s view that rule 20-B did not bar levy at the concessional rate under section 7(2) was treated as disclosing no error of law, and no referable question of law arose for a reference under section 44(2).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158954</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>