<?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>2016 (1) TMI 187 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270395</link>
    <description>An Export Oriented Unit exemption certificate was liable to cancellation where the prescribed export condition was not met, because the record showed no exports in one year and only 1.68% in another, far below the required threshold. The authorities were therefore justified in treating the statutory conditions as breached and cancelling the certificate. The evidence also supported a finding that the dealer collected Punjab sales tax and Central sales tax in sale invoices rather than merely charging handling fees, as the books and vouchers showed separate tax postings and no adequate explanation was given. On those facts, the concurrent findings were sustained and the appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412058" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 187 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270395</link>
      <description>An Export Oriented Unit exemption certificate was liable to cancellation where the prescribed export condition was not met, because the record showed no exports in one year and only 1.68% in another, far below the required threshold. The authorities were therefore justified in treating the statutory conditions as breached and cancelling the certificate. The evidence also supported a finding that the dealer collected Punjab sales tax and Central sales tax in sale invoices rather than merely charging handling fees, as the books and vouchers showed separate tax postings and no adequate explanation was given. On those facts, the concurrent findings were sustained and the appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270395</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>