<?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>1994 (10) TMI 306 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187912</link>
    <description>Where the statutory scheme grants exemption from a second levy on proof that fee has already been paid elsewhere, the prescribed time for filing the supporting form is directory unless the statute clearly makes it mandatory. Delay in furnishing Form-LL under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Rules could not defeat exemption from second-time market fee, because the rule&#039;s object was to prevent double payment. Likewise, delayed filing of Form-E under the Haryana Rural Development regime did not extinguish exemption from a second levy, absent any rebuttal to prior payment elsewhere. The demands were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2016 10:41:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=447379" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (10) TMI 306 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187912</link>
      <description>Where the statutory scheme grants exemption from a second levy on proof that fee has already been paid elsewhere, the prescribed time for filing the supporting form is directory unless the statute clearly makes it mandatory. Delay in furnishing Form-LL under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Rules could not defeat exemption from second-time market fee, because the rule&#039;s object was to prevent double payment. Likewise, delayed filing of Form-E under the Haryana Rural Development regime did not extinguish exemption from a second levy, absent any rebuttal to prior payment elsewhere. The demands were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187912</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>