<?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>1969 (11) TMI 70 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148725</link>
    <description>A rigid rule-based time limit for filing Form C declarations under the Central Sales Tax Act could not be enforced where the controlling test was whether the forms were furnished within a reasonable time on the facts. Declarations filed before assessment, before communication of the assessment order, or later by duplicates where originals were not traced were not to be rejected automatically and had to be considered on merits. The document also states that cotton tyre cord warp sheet was classifiable in its commercial character as cotton yarn, so the applicable tax treatment was that for cotton yarn rather than a higher levy based on an incorrect description of the goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 16:16:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166765" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (11) TMI 70 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148725</link>
      <description>A rigid rule-based time limit for filing Form C declarations under the Central Sales Tax Act could not be enforced where the controlling test was whether the forms were furnished within a reasonable time on the facts. Declarations filed before assessment, before communication of the assessment order, or later by duplicates where originals were not traced were not to be rejected automatically and had to be considered on merits. The document also states that cotton tyre cord warp sheet was classifiable in its commercial character as cotton yarn, so the applicable tax treatment was that for cotton yarn rather than a higher levy based on an incorrect description of the goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148725</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>