<?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 (1) TMI 653 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162315</link>
    <description>An exemption notification under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act was construed strictly and, read with rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, was held to be dealer-specific rather than an exemption attached to the goods. The benefit extended only to a dealer holding a valid exemption certificate for goods manufactured by an eligible unit, and not to another dealer merely because the goods originated from an exempted unit. Inter-State sales by a dealer without such certificate were therefore not exempt from Central sales tax. The reference was answered in favour of the revenue, and the claimed exemption was denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:28:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347009" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 653 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162315</link>
      <description>An exemption notification under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act was construed strictly and, read with rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, was held to be dealer-specific rather than an exemption attached to the goods. The benefit extended only to a dealer holding a valid exemption certificate for goods manufactured by an eligible unit, and not to another dealer merely because the goods originated from an exempted unit. Inter-State sales by a dealer without such certificate were therefore not exempt from Central sales tax. The reference was answered in favour of the revenue, and the claimed exemption was denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162315</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>