<?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 (12) TMI 604 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162125</link>
    <description>The exemption claimed for purchases of raw material by a new unit did not fully exempt the relevant dal purchases from tax; liability depended on purchase from a registered dealer and production of the prescribed certificate of tax payment. On that basis, the assessment order and penalty notice were not liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction, especially where the ordinary appellate remedy remained available. A writ of mandamus for issuance of Form III-C(2) also could not be granted mechanically, because entitlement had first to be verified by the assessing authority on the facts of tax payment. The petitioner was left to pursue the claim before the authority and through the prescribed appellate process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346479" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 604 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162125</link>
      <description>The exemption claimed for purchases of raw material by a new unit did not fully exempt the relevant dal purchases from tax; liability depended on purchase from a registered dealer and production of the prescribed certificate of tax payment. On that basis, the assessment order and penalty notice were not liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction, especially where the ordinary appellate remedy remained available. A writ of mandamus for issuance of Form III-C(2) also could not be granted mechanically, because entitlement had first to be verified by the assessing authority on the facts of tax payment. The petitioner was left to pursue the claim before the authority and through the prescribed appellate process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162125</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>