<?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>1997 (9) TMI 565 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159190</link>
    <description>Exemption from central sales tax on inter-State sales of declared goods was available only if the dealer proved that the goods had already suffered levy and collection of tax under the relevant State sales tax law. The governing scheme under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, read with Section 15 and the State Government order issued under that provision, placed the burden on the assessee to establish prior tax payment on the local sale or purchase. On the facts, the assessee failed to do so because the suppliers were found to be non-existent or to have misused registration certificates, and there was no satisfactory proof of prior taxation. The claim for exemption was therefore rejected and the inter-State turnover remained taxable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2013 12:33:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336066" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 565 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159190</link>
      <description>Exemption from central sales tax on inter-State sales of declared goods was available only if the dealer proved that the goods had already suffered levy and collection of tax under the relevant State sales tax law. The governing scheme under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, read with Section 15 and the State Government order issued under that provision, placed the burden on the assessee to establish prior tax payment on the local sale or purchase. On the facts, the assessee failed to do so because the suppliers were found to be non-existent or to have misused registration certificates, and there was no satisfactory proof of prior taxation. The claim for exemption was therefore rejected and the inter-State turnover remained taxable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159190</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>