<?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 (8) TMI 646 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162872</link>
    <description>Entitlement to set-off under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act depended on the effective period of the recognition certificate, not the later date on which it was issued. Because the certificate operated from 11 December 1990 and covered the period for which set-off was claimed, the dealer was bound by the legal consequences attached to that certificate for that period. A dealer could not rely on the certificate for the relevant period while also claiming a concession unavailable to holders of such a certificate. The set-off was therefore not available for the relevant period, and the withdrawal of the set-off was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:12:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348877" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 646 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162872</link>
      <description>Entitlement to set-off under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act depended on the effective period of the recognition certificate, not the later date on which it was issued. Because the certificate operated from 11 December 1990 and covered the period for which set-off was claimed, the dealer was bound by the legal consequences attached to that certificate for that period. A dealer could not rely on the certificate for the relevant period while also claiming a concession unavailable to holders of such a certificate. The set-off was therefore not available for the relevant period, and the withdrawal of the set-off was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162872</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>