<?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>1979 (7) TMI 225 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152831</link>
    <description>Declared goods purchased at a point after the first taxable purchase were not liable to tax in the buyer&#039;s hands under the single-point scheme of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Where the dealer produced purchase bills, vouchers, and seller particulars showing that tax had already been paid, the turnover was treated as second purchases and fell outside section 4 tax liability. Failure to produce the form prescribed by rule 26(13) did not defeat the substantive exemption, because that rule was procedural and the dealer had otherwise discharged the burden of proving non-liability under section 10. The substantive tax position prevailed over the missing form.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2013 16:24:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169868" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (7) TMI 225 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152831</link>
      <description>Declared goods purchased at a point after the first taxable purchase were not liable to tax in the buyer&#039;s hands under the single-point scheme of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Where the dealer produced purchase bills, vouchers, and seller particulars showing that tax had already been paid, the turnover was treated as second purchases and fell outside section 4 tax liability. Failure to produce the form prescribed by rule 26(13) did not defeat the substantive exemption, because that rule was procedural and the dealer had otherwise discharged the burden of proving non-liability under section 10. The substantive tax position prevailed over the missing form.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152831</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>