<?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>1993 (8) TMI 300 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183898</link>
    <description>Machinery imported into the State for a dealer&#039;s own use in manufacturing, and not for resale, did not attract the Form 31 requirement on the facts found because no taxable sale transaction arose. On that basis, non-furnishing of the form was treated as at most a technical breach. Penalty under the Sales Tax Act was therefore not sustainable absent contumacious conduct or conscious disregard of law, and the penalty order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:14:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432718" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (8) TMI 300 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183898</link>
      <description>Machinery imported into the State for a dealer&#039;s own use in manufacturing, and not for resale, did not attract the Form 31 requirement on the facts found because no taxable sale transaction arose. On that basis, non-furnishing of the form was treated as at most a technical breach. Penalty under the Sales Tax Act was therefore not sustainable absent contumacious conduct or conscious disregard of law, and the penalty order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183898</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>