https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244738 Concurrent findings that the assessee had made inter-State sales of hydraulic excavators were not disturbed, but liability depended on the applicable notification. The 1992 notification prescribed tax at 4% where C-Form was not furnished, whereas the later 2000 exemption notification, issued under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, limited tax to 2% and did not impose any C-Form condition. The later notification therefore governed the transactions, and tax could not be levied at 4% under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Additional tax, penalty and interest were not payable. en-us Wed, 04 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Mar 2014 06:53:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244738 Concurrent findings that the assessee had made inter-State sales of hydraulic excavators were not disturbed, but liability depended on the applicable notification. The 1992 notification prescribed tax at 4% where C-Form was not furnished, whereas the later 2000 exemption notification, issued under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, limited tax to 2% and did not impose any C-Form condition. The later notification therefore governed the transactions, and tax could not be levied at 4% under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Additional tax, penalty and interest were not payable. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 04 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244738