<?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>2011 (3) TMI 1718 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190877</link>
    <description>The Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority upheld the imposition of tax based on Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and other relevant provisions, considering the facts of the case and the decision of the Supreme Court. The petitioner withdrew the appeal in the Supreme Court and was directed to file a writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner sought permission to present evidence to demonstrate goods were dispatched on consignment basis, not as interstate sales, and challenged the validity of Section 6A. However, during arguments, the petitioner decided not to challenge the validity of Section 6A, and the Court closed that aspect, allowing the petitioner to pursue other reliefs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2017 17:44:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460572" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 1718 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190877</link>
      <description>The Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority upheld the imposition of tax based on Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and other relevant provisions, considering the facts of the case and the decision of the Supreme Court. The petitioner withdrew the appeal in the Supreme Court and was directed to file a writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner sought permission to present evidence to demonstrate goods were dispatched on consignment basis, not as interstate sales, and challenged the validity of Section 6A. However, during arguments, the petitioner decided not to challenge the validity of Section 6A, and the Court closed that aspect, allowing the petitioner to pursue other reliefs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190877</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>