<?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>2014 (7) TMI 404 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249367</link>
    <description>Duplicate Form C declarations may be accepted where the substantive declaration is already on record and no misuse is shown, because section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act and rule 12(1) do not make the original physical copy indispensable in every case. The Court relied on the principle that Form C is made up of identical parts and that substantial compliance is sufficient when the original forms are already available in another assessment record. On that basis, the duplicate C forms could be verified against the originals, and the consequential exemption for the remaining turnover was available; the revisional order refusing that claim was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=359424" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 404 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249367</link>
      <description>Duplicate Form C declarations may be accepted where the substantive declaration is already on record and no misuse is shown, because section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act and rule 12(1) do not make the original physical copy indispensable in every case. The Court relied on the principle that Form C is made up of identical parts and that substantial compliance is sufficient when the original forms are already available in another assessment record. On that basis, the duplicate C forms could be verified against the originals, and the consequential exemption for the remaining turnover was available; the revisional order refusing that claim was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249367</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>