<?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>2015 (1) TMI 591 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255392</link>
    <description>Rule 42H of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 did not allow set-off for sales covered by Form N-14B, because that mechanism applied only to transactions within the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 levy. Sales treated as in the course of export under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, read with Rule 21A and Form N-14B, were outside the State sales tax net and therefore not eligible for drawback or set-off. A harmonious reading with Section 75 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act confirmed that export sales and other excluded transactions could not be brought within Rule 42H merely because the earlier explanation to the rule was absent for the relevant period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2015 16:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 591 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255392</link>
      <description>Rule 42H of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 did not allow set-off for sales covered by Form N-14B, because that mechanism applied only to transactions within the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 levy. Sales treated as in the course of export under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, read with Rule 21A and Form N-14B, were outside the State sales tax net and therefore not eligible for drawback or set-off. A harmonious reading with Section 75 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act confirmed that export sales and other excluded transactions could not be brought within Rule 42H merely because the earlier explanation to the rule was absent for the relevant period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>