<?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>2002 (7) TMI 763 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160832</link>
    <description>Sales made against Form 24-B declarations remained exempt where the buyer&#039;s registration cancellation was not effectively notified to dealers and interim court orders had maintained the status quo. The High Court noted conflicting cancellation dates and held that the statutory cancellation rule required both a written order and publication on the notice board so persons dealing with the registered dealer would have notice. In the absence of reliable proof that the seller knew of an effective cancellation at the time of sale, tax, interest and penalty could not be fastened on the seller for those transactions. The assessment was to be reframed on that basis, while action against the buyer was left open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Dec 2013 14:15:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340714" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (7) TMI 763 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160832</link>
      <description>Sales made against Form 24-B declarations remained exempt where the buyer&#039;s registration cancellation was not effectively notified to dealers and interim court orders had maintained the status quo. The High Court noted conflicting cancellation dates and held that the statutory cancellation rule required both a written order and publication on the notice board so persons dealing with the registered dealer would have notice. In the absence of reliable proof that the seller knew of an effective cancellation at the time of sale, tax, interest and penalty could not be fastened on the seller for those transactions. The assessment was to be reframed on that basis, while action against the buyer was left open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160832</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>