<?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>1954 (3) TMI 54 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127329</link>
    <description>Rule 16 was read as applying only where a tanner purchases untanned hides and skins for tanning by himself, supported by the wording of the rule, the return form and the refund mechanism, which also avoided multiple taxation at successive tanning stages. The text further notes that if the goods are later exported or resold after return, the rules permit refund where applicable. It also states that an assessee may be allowed to show before the Appellate Tribunal that part of the turnover consisted of purchases from unlicensed dealers, since failure to raise that distinction earlier may be treated as non-wilful where the law was unsettled. The matter was remitted for reconsideration on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:54:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164206" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (3) TMI 54 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127329</link>
      <description>Rule 16 was read as applying only where a tanner purchases untanned hides and skins for tanning by himself, supported by the wording of the rule, the return form and the refund mechanism, which also avoided multiple taxation at successive tanning stages. The text further notes that if the goods are later exported or resold after return, the rules permit refund where applicable. It also states that an assessee may be allowed to show before the Appellate Tribunal that part of the turnover consisted of purchases from unlicensed dealers, since failure to raise that distinction earlier may be treated as non-wilful where the law was unsettled. The matter was remitted for reconsideration on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127329</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>