<?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>2007 (5) TMI 576 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163188</link>
    <description>A recognition certificate holder who purchases paddy at concessional rate or without tax under section 4B must use it only for the notified purpose for which the concession was granted. Where the admitted facts showed purchase against form IIIB followed by diversion of the paddy to other rice millers instead of manufacture of rice, the statutory condition attached to the concession was breached and penalty under section 4B(5) was attracted. The relied-upon notifications did not protect the dealer, because the later notification applied to dealers without a recognition certificate and the earlier notification had been superseded. The penalty was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:04:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349745" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (5) TMI 576 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163188</link>
      <description>A recognition certificate holder who purchases paddy at concessional rate or without tax under section 4B must use it only for the notified purpose for which the concession was granted. Where the admitted facts showed purchase against form IIIB followed by diversion of the paddy to other rice millers instead of manufacture of rice, the statutory condition attached to the concession was breached and penalty under section 4B(5) was attracted. The relied-upon notifications did not protect the dealer, because the later notification applied to dealers without a recognition certificate and the earlier notification had been superseded. The penalty was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163188</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>