<?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>2012 (4) TMI 740 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200153</link>
    <description>Tax liability could not be fastened on the selling dealer where the purchasing dealer furnished the prescribed declaration for exemption under the statutory scheme continuing from section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 into the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994. The High Court noted that the declaration showed no apparent defect or reason for the seller to doubt the purchaser&#039;s entitlement, so the seller was not required to independently verify the purchaser&#039;s eligibility. On that scheme, any liability lay on the purchasing dealer, not the seller in such circumstances, and the impugned orders were quashed as unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:46:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514130" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 740 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200153</link>
      <description>Tax liability could not be fastened on the selling dealer where the purchasing dealer furnished the prescribed declaration for exemption under the statutory scheme continuing from section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 into the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994. The High Court noted that the declaration showed no apparent defect or reason for the seller to doubt the purchaser&#039;s entitlement, so the seller was not required to independently verify the purchaser&#039;s eligibility. On that scheme, any liability lay on the purchasing dealer, not the seller in such circumstances, and the impugned orders were quashed as unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200153</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>