<?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 (9) TMI 351 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159601</link>
    <description>A dealer claiming the concessional rate under the Central Sales Tax Act must furnish a valid declaration in Form C in the prescribed form and manner, duly completed and signed by the purchasing dealer. Forms issued before the sales and later completed by the seller did not satisfy section 8(4)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 or rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. Subsequent buyer certificates could not cure the defect, and substantial compliance could not replace the statutory requirement of strict compliance. The disputed turnover therefore was not eligible for concessional tax treatment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:37:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337345" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (9) TMI 351 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159601</link>
      <description>A dealer claiming the concessional rate under the Central Sales Tax Act must furnish a valid declaration in Form C in the prescribed form and manner, duly completed and signed by the purchasing dealer. Forms issued before the sales and later completed by the seller did not satisfy section 8(4)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 or rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. Subsequent buyer certificates could not cure the defect, and substantial compliance could not replace the statutory requirement of strict compliance. The disputed turnover therefore was not eligible for concessional tax treatment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159601</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>