<?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>2018 (1) TMI 1251 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354515</link>
    <description>Furnishing the duplicate portion of Form C or Form F, where the original declaration was lost, was treated as sufficient compliance for claiming the concessional rate under the Central Sales Tax framework. The statutory scheme under Section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act and Rules 12 and 10(2) of the relevant registration, turnover and Tamil Nadu rules permits use of a duplicate declaration in cases of loss and also allows delayed production for sufficient cause. Because the duplicate forms were found genuine and there was no evidence of misuse, the filing requirement was treated as directory rather than mandatory, and belated production before the appellate authority was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2018 15:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506677" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 1251 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354515</link>
      <description>Furnishing the duplicate portion of Form C or Form F, where the original declaration was lost, was treated as sufficient compliance for claiming the concessional rate under the Central Sales Tax framework. The statutory scheme under Section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act and Rules 12 and 10(2) of the relevant registration, turnover and Tamil Nadu rules permits use of a duplicate declaration in cases of loss and also allows delayed production for sufficient cause. Because the duplicate forms were found genuine and there was no evidence of misuse, the filing requirement was treated as directory rather than mandatory, and belated production before the appellate authority was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354515</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>