https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299333 Refusal to issue a C form for an inter-State sale was treated as contrary to law on the factual record, and the refund claim was upheld because the State did not dispute that refund liability was payable and the tax burden had been passed on to the purchaser. The Court declined to entertain the Special Leave Petitions on that limited factual basis and left open the broader question whether Section 36 of the Gujarat VAT Act, 2003 confines refunds to dealers registered in Gujarat, reserving that statutory interpretation for an appropriate future case. Time for compliance with the refund order was extended by four weeks. en-us Wed, 10 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jun 2022 14:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299333 Refusal to issue a C form for an inter-State sale was treated as contrary to law on the factual record, and the refund claim was upheld because the State did not dispute that refund liability was payable and the tax burden had been passed on to the purchaser. The Court declined to entertain the Special Leave Petitions on that limited factual basis and left open the broader question whether Section 36 of the Gujarat VAT Act, 2003 confines refunds to dealers registered in Gujarat, reserving that statutory interpretation for an appropriate future case. Time for compliance with the refund order was extended by four weeks. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 10 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299333