<?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>1977 (5) TMI 78 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151616</link>
    <description>Machinery brought into Mahe through Cochin Port for use in textile mills was treated as an import within the taxing provision, so compensating tax applied. The earlier suspension of levy on textile mills was temporary and could validly be withdrawn, allowing the tax to operate again from 1 June 1962. Recovery was not barred by prescription because quantification depended on records that the assessee had not furnished. The transaction tax also survived the de jure merger, as the saving provisions preserved pre-existing territorial taxes and no competent repeal was shown. The levy was therefore upheld, subject to opportunity for production of records before final quantification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2013 18:33:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168654" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (5) TMI 78 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151616</link>
      <description>Machinery brought into Mahe through Cochin Port for use in textile mills was treated as an import within the taxing provision, so compensating tax applied. The earlier suspension of levy on textile mills was temporary and could validly be withdrawn, allowing the tax to operate again from 1 June 1962. Recovery was not barred by prescription because quantification depended on records that the assessee had not furnished. The transaction tax also survived the de jure merger, as the saving provisions preserved pre-existing territorial taxes and no competent repeal was shown. The levy was therefore upheld, subject to opportunity for production of records before final quantification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151616</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>