<?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>1998 (4) TMI 484 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104637</link>
    <description>Declared goods subject to a single-point levy cannot be taxed at a later sale if the first sale in the State is exempt. The text explains that iron and steel, being declared goods under the Central Sales Tax Act, were governed by the single-point restriction, while the State schedule fixed the tax point at the first sale. Because the first sale by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was exempt under the State notification, the statutory scheme did not permit the levy to be shifted to a subsequent purchaser&#039;s sale. The circular was therefore invalid to the extent it treated the exempt first sale as ineffective and attempted to impose tax at a later stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2025 18:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141676" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 484 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104637</link>
      <description>Declared goods subject to a single-point levy cannot be taxed at a later sale if the first sale in the State is exempt. The text explains that iron and steel, being declared goods under the Central Sales Tax Act, were governed by the single-point restriction, while the State schedule fixed the tax point at the first sale. Because the first sale by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was exempt under the State notification, the statutory scheme did not permit the levy to be shifted to a subsequent purchaser&#039;s sale. The circular was therefore invalid to the extent it treated the exempt first sale as ineffective and attempted to impose tax at a later stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>