https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163474 Form 40 under the Karnataka entry tax regime is only an acknowledgment issued after a manufacturer remits tax collected from dealers, and it does not create an independent statutory right to obtain a receipt before payment. The Court's reasoning was that the manufacturer's collection and onward remittance of the tax reflects a voluntary assumption of the dealer's liability, so refusal to issue Form 40 until remittance is made is not coercive recovery of a pre-cut-off debt. Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 therefore did not bar the State from insisting on actual payment before issuing the form, and the writ of mandamus was not maintainable. en-us Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Apr 2014 11:35:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163474 Form 40 under the Karnataka entry tax regime is only an acknowledgment issued after a manufacturer remits tax collected from dealers, and it does not create an independent statutory right to obtain a receipt before payment. The Court's reasoning was that the manufacturer's collection and onward remittance of the tax reflects a voluntary assumption of the dealer's liability, so refusal to issue Form 40 until remittance is made is not coercive recovery of a pre-cut-off debt. Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 therefore did not bar the State from insisting on actual payment before issuing the form, and the writ of mandamus was not maintainable. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163474