<?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>2003 (8) TMI 482 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161540</link>
    <description>Stainless steel sheets were held not to fall within the Form No. 49 requirement under section 8-A(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act because the departmental circular confined that form to iron and steel as defined under the Central Sales Tax Act, and the department&#039;s own treatment of the commodity showed separate classification. The article also states that, where section 8-A(5) applies and goods are not accompanied by the prescribed memo, the statutory presumption of non-accountal may support seizure under section 13-A. The practical effect was that the demand for Form No. 49 could not be sustained for stainless steel sheets, and seizure on that footing was unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:56:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344491" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 482 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161540</link>
      <description>Stainless steel sheets were held not to fall within the Form No. 49 requirement under section 8-A(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act because the departmental circular confined that form to iron and steel as defined under the Central Sales Tax Act, and the department&#039;s own treatment of the commodity showed separate classification. The article also states that, where section 8-A(5) applies and goods are not accompanied by the prescribed memo, the statutory presumption of non-accountal may support seizure under section 13-A. The practical effect was that the demand for Form No. 49 could not be sustained for stainless steel sheets, and seizure on that footing was unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161540</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>