https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165123 A tax concession tied to goods intended for use in Lakshadweep was construed as requiring actual end-use there, not merely an intention at the time of sale. The selling dealer was not liable for differential tax or penalty merely because the purchaser failed to use the goods as stipulated, since the seller had no control over post-sale utilisation and the statute did not create vicarious liability for that default. Penalty under section 45A was also unsustainable because the notice was confined to non-utilisation, while the later findings travelled beyond the charge, vitiating the proceedings for breach of natural justice. en-us Mon, 04 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165123 A tax concession tied to goods intended for use in Lakshadweep was construed as requiring actual end-use there, not merely an intention at the time of sale. The selling dealer was not liable for differential tax or penalty merely because the purchaser failed to use the goods as stipulated, since the seller had no control over post-sale utilisation and the statute did not create vicarious liability for that default. Penalty under section 45A was also unsustainable because the notice was confined to non-utilisation, while the later findings travelled beyond the charge, vitiating the proceedings for breach of natural justice. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 04 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165123