<?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>1992 (7) TMI 324 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159481</link>
    <description>An exemption notification and declaration form governing deduction from gross turnover for sales to registered manufacturers required only the stated conditions to be met, including the purchaser&#039;s industrial status, intended use of the goods, the place of sale of finished products, the period of exemption, and the furnishing of the prescribed declaration. The text states that the purchaser&#039;s separate entitlement to buy the commodity under its registration certificate was not an additional condition for the selling dealer&#039;s deduction claim. It also notes that rejection based on that extra requirement was unwarranted, while remand for verification of supporting forms remained proper.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2013 12:43:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337135" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (7) TMI 324 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159481</link>
      <description>An exemption notification and declaration form governing deduction from gross turnover for sales to registered manufacturers required only the stated conditions to be met, including the purchaser&#039;s industrial status, intended use of the goods, the place of sale of finished products, the period of exemption, and the furnishing of the prescribed declaration. The text states that the purchaser&#039;s separate entitlement to buy the commodity under its registration certificate was not an additional condition for the selling dealer&#039;s deduction claim. It also notes that rejection based on that extra requirement was unwarranted, while remand for verification of supporting forms remained proper.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159481</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>