<?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 (1) TMI 964 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160704</link>
    <description>A registration certificate under the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 could not lawfully be confined so narrowly that it excluded goods intended to be purchased for resale where the statute contemplated such coverage. The omission of a separate space in the application form did not defeat the substantive entitlement, because a statutory form is subordinate to the enabling rule. The proper course was amendment of the registration certificate under the amendment provision, and the dealer was entitled to seek inclusion of intended purchases for resale if the competent authority was satisfied under the applicable rule.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Dec 2013 12:52:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340427" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 964 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160704</link>
      <description>A registration certificate under the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 could not lawfully be confined so narrowly that it excluded goods intended to be purchased for resale where the statute contemplated such coverage. The omission of a separate space in the application form did not defeat the substantive entitlement, because a statutory form is subordinate to the enabling rule. The proper course was amendment of the registration certificate under the amendment provision, and the dealer was entitled to seek inclusion of intended purchases for resale if the competent authority was satisfied under the applicable rule.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>