https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160062 The Haryana General Sales Tax framework was upheld in part and struck down only in part. The proviso to section 6(1) was held valid because a sub-contractor formed part of the contractor's works contract, and the levy was intended to operate at one stage only, avoiding double taxation. The proviso to section 18 and rules 24(i) and 28A(4)(c) were also upheld because requiring prescribed declarations to prove prior tax payment or exempt-unit status was treated as a valid condition for claiming exemption or deduction. Rule 39A(11), however, was invalidated because it barred brick-kiln owners under lump sum composition from issuing form S.T. 14, contrary to the Act's scheme. en-us Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Dec 2013 18:03:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160062 The Haryana General Sales Tax framework was upheld in part and struck down only in part. The proviso to section 6(1) was held valid because a sub-contractor formed part of the contractor's works contract, and the levy was intended to operate at one stage only, avoiding double taxation. The proviso to section 18 and rules 24(i) and 28A(4)(c) were also upheld because requiring prescribed declarations to prove prior tax payment or exempt-unit status was treated as a valid condition for claiming exemption or deduction. Rule 39A(11), however, was invalidated because it barred brick-kiln owners under lump sum composition from issuing form S.T. 14, contrary to the Act's scheme. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160062