<?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 (9) TMI 827 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332566</link>
    <description>Strict compliance with the declaration and documentary requirements for penultimate-sale export exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act is necessary, because the benefit applies only when the sale is proved to be in the course of export and supported by the prescribed Form H particulars. The Court treated these requirements as substantive, so discrepancies in the export documents justified denial of the exemption. It further held that, where export proof failed, the disputed sale could not be treated as inter-State merely on the basis of the asserted onward export and was liable, at best, as a local sale. The penalty imposed in revision was left undisturbed, as no material showed evasion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441688" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 827 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332566</link>
      <description>Strict compliance with the declaration and documentary requirements for penultimate-sale export exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act is necessary, because the benefit applies only when the sale is proved to be in the course of export and supported by the prescribed Form H particulars. The Court treated these requirements as substantive, so discrepancies in the export documents justified denial of the exemption. It further held that, where export proof failed, the disputed sale could not be treated as inter-State merely on the basis of the asserted onward export and was liable, at best, as a local sale. The penalty imposed in revision was left undisturbed, as no material showed evasion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332566</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>