<?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 (2) TMI 1298 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160901</link>
    <description>At the stage of issuing C forms, the authority may verify only the statutory preconditions: the applicant must be a registered dealer, the goods must fall within the registration certificate, and the prescribed fee must be paid with proof. The authority cannot refuse issuance by conducting a premature enquiry into whether the underlying dealings are local or inter-State sales, or by anticipating possible misuse of the forms. Any challenge to the true character of the transaction or alleged misuse is to be considered later at the assessment or penalty stage. On these facts, supply of the C forms was required and the rejection was unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:13:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340857" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 1298 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160901</link>
      <description>At the stage of issuing C forms, the authority may verify only the statutory preconditions: the applicant must be a registered dealer, the goods must fall within the registration certificate, and the prescribed fee must be paid with proof. The authority cannot refuse issuance by conducting a premature enquiry into whether the underlying dealings are local or inter-State sales, or by anticipating possible misuse of the forms. Any challenge to the true character of the transaction or alleged misuse is to be considered later at the assessment or penalty stage. On these facts, supply of the C forms was required and the rejection was unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160901</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>