<?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 (9) TMI 825 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161527</link>
    <description>Condition No. 21 of the tender was construed to bar collection of sales tax on bajri from registered dealers dealing in building materials, because the registration certificates covered goods such as stones, marbles, granites, cement, cement wares and similar building materials. Bajri was treated by the department as a building material, and the reference in the clause to registered dealers in the mineral was not limited to dealers exclusively dealing in bajri. On that construction, the contractor was bound by the auction terms after accepting the contract and could not override them. The challenge to the notice, communication and Tribunal order therefore failed, and collection of sales tax from the concerned registered dealers was not permitted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:14:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344478" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 825 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161527</link>
      <description>Condition No. 21 of the tender was construed to bar collection of sales tax on bajri from registered dealers dealing in building materials, because the registration certificates covered goods such as stones, marbles, granites, cement, cement wares and similar building materials. Bajri was treated by the department as a building material, and the reference in the clause to registered dealers in the mineral was not limited to dealers exclusively dealing in bajri. On that construction, the contractor was bound by the auction terms after accepting the contract and could not override them. The challenge to the notice, communication and Tribunal order therefore failed, and collection of sales tax from the concerned registered dealers was not permitted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161527</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>