<?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>1967 (7) TMI 104 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148244</link>
    <description>A concessional sales tax rate under section 3(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act could not be denied merely because Form XVII declarations were not attached to the monthly returns, where they were produced before final assessment. The provision required furnishing the declaration in the prescribed manner, and rule 22 prescribed the form and attachment to the return, but the rule-making power could not add a time-limit not found in the statutory language. As the declarations were filed before the assessment order, the statutory requirement was treated as satisfied and the assessee remained entitled to the concessional rate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:18:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166284" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (7) TMI 104 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148244</link>
      <description>A concessional sales tax rate under section 3(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act could not be denied merely because Form XVII declarations were not attached to the monthly returns, where they were produced before final assessment. The provision required furnishing the declaration in the prescribed manner, and rule 22 prescribed the form and attachment to the return, but the rule-making power could not add a time-limit not found in the statutory language. As the declarations were filed before the assessment order, the statutory requirement was treated as satisfied and the assessee remained entitled to the concessional rate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148244</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>