<?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 (3) TMI 646 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163765</link>
    <description>Commercial tax could not be levied on the twelve Form 75 transactions because the vegetable seed goods were covered by the Schedule I exemption under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994, one form did not relate to the assessee, and the remaining sales were effected directly from Chennai as inter-State trade. As movement commenced outside Madhya Pradesh, Section 79 barred State levy since the sales were not shown to have taken place within the State. Mere issuance of Form 75 from the Bhopal branch was held insufficient to establish a local taxable sale, and the authorities&#039; contrary view was unsupported by the record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2014 12:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351744" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 646 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163765</link>
      <description>Commercial tax could not be levied on the twelve Form 75 transactions because the vegetable seed goods were covered by the Schedule I exemption under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994, one form did not relate to the assessee, and the remaining sales were effected directly from Chennai as inter-State trade. As movement commenced outside Madhya Pradesh, Section 79 barred State levy since the sales were not shown to have taken place within the State. Mere issuance of Form 75 from the Bhopal branch was held insufficient to establish a local taxable sale, and the authorities&#039; contrary view was unsupported by the record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163765</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>