<?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 (9) TMI 225 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154091</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision that the respondent acted as a buying agent, not a seller, in the transaction involving gunny bags. The evidence, including tender documents and bills, supported this conclusion, leading to the dismissal of the State&#039;s tax case. The penalty imposed by the assessing authority was set aside, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s ruling in favor of the respondent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:00:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171124" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (9) TMI 225 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154091</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision that the respondent acted as a buying agent, not a seller, in the transaction involving gunny bags. The evidence, including tender documents and bills, supported this conclusion, leading to the dismissal of the State&#039;s tax case. The penalty imposed by the assessing authority was set aside, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s ruling in favor of the respondent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154091</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>