<?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>2008 (5) TMI 615 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163029</link>
    <description>A subsequent purchaser of vegetable ghee could claim deduction or exemption under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act by furnishing the prescribed ST-14 declaration, because section 18 required compliance with the statutory certificate form and did not impose a further duty to verify whether the first seller had actually paid tax. Once the prescribed declaration was furnished, the purchasing dealer satisfied the statutory condition. Any false declaration or non-payment by the first seller remained the responsibility of the selling dealer, not the compliant purchaser. The benefit under section 18 could not be refused merely because the first seller failed to remit the tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2014 19:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349204" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 615 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163029</link>
      <description>A subsequent purchaser of vegetable ghee could claim deduction or exemption under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act by furnishing the prescribed ST-14 declaration, because section 18 required compliance with the statutory certificate form and did not impose a further duty to verify whether the first seller had actually paid tax. Once the prescribed declaration was furnished, the purchasing dealer satisfied the statutory condition. Any false declaration or non-payment by the first seller remained the responsibility of the selling dealer, not the compliant purchaser. The benefit under section 18 could not be refused merely because the first seller failed to remit the tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>