<?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 (9) TMI 314 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263646</link>
    <description>Deduction from taxable turnover could not be denied where the selling dealer proved sales to registered dealers against valid ST-1 declarations and supporting invoices, ledger accounts, bank records and proof of consideration. Rule 7(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 required production of bills or cash memos and duly filled ST-1 forms, and those conditions were satisfied. Discrepancies in the purchasing dealers&#039; ST-2 accounts, later non-traceability of the buyers, or receipt of advance payments did not cast a statutory duty on the seller to investigate the buyers&#039; subsequent conduct. The record showed genuine sales and compliance with the deduction conditions, so denial of the deduction was unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2015 17:24:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396120" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 314 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263646</link>
      <description>Deduction from taxable turnover could not be denied where the selling dealer proved sales to registered dealers against valid ST-1 declarations and supporting invoices, ledger accounts, bank records and proof of consideration. Rule 7(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 required production of bills or cash memos and duly filled ST-1 forms, and those conditions were satisfied. Discrepancies in the purchasing dealers&#039; ST-2 accounts, later non-traceability of the buyers, or receipt of advance payments did not cast a statutory duty on the seller to investigate the buyers&#039; subsequent conduct. The record showed genuine sales and compliance with the deduction conditions, so denial of the deduction was unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263646</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>