<?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>2000 (7) TMI 941 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160598</link>
    <description>Furnace oil sold against a prescribed declaration in Form I remained exempt or eligible for concessional treatment where the purchasing dealer&#039;s registration certificate specifically covered the goods. The selling dealer was not required to verify how the purchaser ultimately used the goods, and any misuse by the purchaser attracted consequences against the purchaser, not the seller. On that footing, the original deduction of the assessed turnover was upheld and reopening under section 12(8) could not be sustained. The reference was answered in favour of the assessee, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2022 12:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340176" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 941 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160598</link>
      <description>Furnace oil sold against a prescribed declaration in Form I remained exempt or eligible for concessional treatment where the purchasing dealer&#039;s registration certificate specifically covered the goods. The selling dealer was not required to verify how the purchaser ultimately used the goods, and any misuse by the purchaser attracted consequences against the purchaser, not the seller. On that footing, the original deduction of the assessed turnover was upheld and reopening under section 12(8) could not be sustained. The reference was answered in favour of the assessee, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>