<?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>1982 (1) TMI 166 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153175</link>
    <description>Rule 26(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, requiring accounts to be maintained using international numerals, was upheld as within the delegated rule-making power under the Act. The Court distinguished numerals from language, holding that section 40(1) governed the language of accounts but did not confer a statutory right to use a particular numeral system. It also noted the absence of any express guarantee of Gujarati numerals in the Act, while section 53(2)(n) authorised rules regulating the manner in which accounts were to be maintained. The challenge that the rule was ultra vires section 40(1) failed, and the notice and circular were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jul 2013 18:19:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170211" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (1) TMI 166 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153175</link>
      <description>Rule 26(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, requiring accounts to be maintained using international numerals, was upheld as within the delegated rule-making power under the Act. The Court distinguished numerals from language, holding that section 40(1) governed the language of accounts but did not confer a statutory right to use a particular numeral system. It also noted the absence of any express guarantee of Gujarati numerals in the Act, while section 53(2)(n) authorised rules regulating the manner in which accounts were to be maintained. The challenge that the rule was ultra vires section 40(1) failed, and the notice and circular were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153175</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>