<?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>1971 (4) TMI 81 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149901</link>
    <description>An executive sales tax exemption for specified dealers, including plantains dealers, was treated as a benefit that had to be applied fairly and uniformly. The absence of a formal notification under Section 17 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 did not justify denying the exemption where the petitioner satisfied the Government Order and similarly placed dealers had received it. Unequal application of the exemption was characterised as discriminatory and contrary to Article 14, and the argument that there can be no estoppel against statute did not defeat the claim because the issue concerned inconsistent enforcement of an executive benefit already extended to others.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 11:01:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166942" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (4) TMI 81 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149901</link>
      <description>An executive sales tax exemption for specified dealers, including plantains dealers, was treated as a benefit that had to be applied fairly and uniformly. The absence of a formal notification under Section 17 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 did not justify denying the exemption where the petitioner satisfied the Government Order and similarly placed dealers had received it. Unequal application of the exemption was characterised as discriminatory and contrary to Article 14, and the argument that there can be no estoppel against statute did not defeat the claim because the issue concerned inconsistent enforcement of an executive benefit already extended to others.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149901</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>