https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169013 Under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, the Tribunal's refusal to draw a reference was sustained because the challenge raised no error of law apparent on the record or perversity. The court noted that, once a declaration form is issued, section 41(2) places the burden on the purchaser, and the seller cannot automatically avoid liability if the dealer was not entitled to issue the declaration. Relying on the amended section 41 and the binding precedent in M.R.F. Limited, the court held that statutory liability could still arise in accordance with the Act. The reference application was dismissed. en-us Tue, 01 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169013 Under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, the Tribunal's refusal to draw a reference was sustained because the challenge raised no error of law apparent on the record or perversity. The court noted that, once a declaration form is issued, section 41(2) places the burden on the purchaser, and the seller cannot automatically avoid liability if the dealer was not entitled to issue the declaration. Relying on the amended section 41 and the binding precedent in M.R.F. Limited, the court held that statutory liability could still arise in accordance with the Act. The reference application was dismissed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 01 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169013