<?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 (4) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127335</link>
    <description>Statutory sales tax deductions and rebates were treated as conditional reliefs available only on strict compliance with the prescribed rules. The deduction for groundnut oil under rule 5(1)(k) depended on satisfaction of rule 18, including registration as a manufacturer, inclusion of the sale amount in turnover, and timely filing of Form A-9 with the required particulars; the filing requirement was integral to the net turnover machinery, so non-compliance defeated the deduction. The later condonation provision in rule 18(3A) was not retrospective and did not assist the relevant assessment year. A similar result followed for rebate under rule 9, because failure to file Form VIII within time barred the claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2013 15:35:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164212" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (4) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127335</link>
      <description>Statutory sales tax deductions and rebates were treated as conditional reliefs available only on strict compliance with the prescribed rules. The deduction for groundnut oil under rule 5(1)(k) depended on satisfaction of rule 18, including registration as a manufacturer, inclusion of the sale amount in turnover, and timely filing of Form A-9 with the required particulars; the filing requirement was integral to the net turnover machinery, so non-compliance defeated the deduction. The later condonation provision in rule 18(3A) was not retrospective and did not assist the relevant assessment year. A similar result followed for rebate under rule 9, because failure to file Form VIII within time barred the claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127335</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>