<?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>1983 (1) TMI 242 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154039</link>
    <description>A second seller of timber was not permitted to collect sales tax from the purchaser where the statute prohibited collection of tax on such transactions. The record showed that tax was collected on the sale turnover at 5 per cent, rather than merely passing on tax already paid on purchases, so the collection was treated as a breach of the Act. That contravention attracted the statutory penalty provision, and the penalty was held to be justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 29 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2013 16:51:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171073" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (1) TMI 242 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154039</link>
      <description>A second seller of timber was not permitted to collect sales tax from the purchaser where the statute prohibited collection of tax on such transactions. The record showed that tax was collected on the sale turnover at 5 per cent, rather than merely passing on tax already paid on purchases, so the collection was treated as a breach of the Act. That contravention attracted the statutory penalty provision, and the penalty was held to be justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 29 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>