<?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>2005 (6) TMI 530 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162085</link>
    <description>Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act places the burden on the dealer to prove that the movement of goods was otherwise than by sale, and after the 2002 amendment the prescribed declaration is required for that claim. When form F declarations and supporting materials are produced, the assessing authority must conduct an objective enquiry, verify the truth of the particulars, and decide the claim fairly on the materials placed before it. A mechanical rejection based on an inflexible reading of earlier authority is impermissible. The assessment order was therefore held unsustainable, quashed, and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the dealer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:12:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346137" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (6) TMI 530 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162085</link>
      <description>Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act places the burden on the dealer to prove that the movement of goods was otherwise than by sale, and after the 2002 amendment the prescribed declaration is required for that claim. When form F declarations and supporting materials are produced, the assessing authority must conduct an objective enquiry, verify the truth of the particulars, and decide the claim fairly on the materials placed before it. A mechanical rejection based on an inflexible reading of earlier authority is impermissible. The assessment order was therefore held unsustainable, quashed, and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the dealer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162085</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>