<?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 (4) TMI 478 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159390</link>
    <description>Under rule 10(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1957, as applicable for the 1980-81 assessment year, a selling dealer was required to file the original C form to claim concessional tax on inter-State sales. A duplicate form could not be substituted unless the rule expressly allowed it, and the later amendment permitting duplicate production on loss of the original did not apply retrospectively. C forms were also liable to rejection where they did not refer to the purchase order and where the value stated in the form did not match the invoice particulars, especially when no satisfactory explanation for the discrepancy was offered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (4) TMI 478 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159390</link>
      <description>Under rule 10(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1957, as applicable for the 1980-81 assessment year, a selling dealer was required to file the original C form to claim concessional tax on inter-State sales. A duplicate form could not be substituted unless the rule expressly allowed it, and the later amendment permitting duplicate production on loss of the original did not apply retrospectively. C forms were also liable to rejection where they did not refer to the purchase order and where the value stated in the form did not match the invoice particulars, especially when no satisfactory explanation for the discrepancy was offered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>