<?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>1960 (11) TMI 73 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99247</link>
    <description>An exemption from sales tax under section 5 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 was available only if the licence holder complied with the Act, the rules and the licence conditions. Section 3 was the charging provision, while section 5 made exemption conditional upon the prescribed restrictions and conditions; section 13 and rule 5 reinforced the duty to maintain true accounts and follow the statutory scheme. The phrase &quot;subject to&quot; was construed as meaning conditional upon compliance. Breach of the statutory or licence conditions therefore destroyed the exemption, and the assessees remained liable to sales tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2014 14:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136302" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (11) TMI 73 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99247</link>
      <description>An exemption from sales tax under section 5 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 was available only if the licence holder complied with the Act, the rules and the licence conditions. Section 3 was the charging provision, while section 5 made exemption conditional upon the prescribed restrictions and conditions; section 13 and rule 5 reinforced the duty to maintain true accounts and follow the statutory scheme. The phrase &quot;subject to&quot; was construed as meaning conditional upon compliance. Breach of the statutory or licence conditions therefore destroyed the exemption, and the assessees remained liable to sales tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99247</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>