<?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>1999 (11) TMI 857 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161740</link>
    <description>A purchase is outside the State&#039;s taxing power where movement of goods from one State to another is an integral and inseparable part of the transaction, and the true character of the dealings must be determined transaction by transaction on the evidence. The Tribunal erred by not examining the dealer&#039;s documentary material, including account books and statutory forms, and by not recording a clear finding on whether the gur purchases were made for ex-U.P. principals under existing arrangements. Form III-C(1) alone did not attract the conclusive-evidence rule under section 12-A, because the claim was not one under the specific exemption provision to which that presumption applied. The orders were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:17:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345012" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (11) TMI 857 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161740</link>
      <description>A purchase is outside the State&#039;s taxing power where movement of goods from one State to another is an integral and inseparable part of the transaction, and the true character of the dealings must be determined transaction by transaction on the evidence. The Tribunal erred by not examining the dealer&#039;s documentary material, including account books and statutory forms, and by not recording a clear finding on whether the gur purchases were made for ex-U.P. principals under existing arrangements. Form III-C(1) alone did not attract the conclusive-evidence rule under section 12-A, because the claim was not one under the specific exemption provision to which that presumption applied. The orders were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>