<?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 (12) TMI 181 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154103</link>
    <description>Sales of electrical goods purchased from a dealer previously found to be genuine and whose sales were treated as second sales in the State were themselves subsequent sales in the assessee&#039;s hands. The court held that the assessee was not required to prove that the vendor had already suffered tax on those transactions. On that basis, the assessee&#039;s sales were treated as second sales and not first sales liable to single point tax, and the revision was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:53:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171136" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (12) TMI 181 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154103</link>
      <description>Sales of electrical goods purchased from a dealer previously found to be genuine and whose sales were treated as second sales in the State were themselves subsequent sales in the assessee&#039;s hands. The court held that the assessee was not required to prove that the vendor had already suffered tax on those transactions. On that basis, the assessee&#039;s sales were treated as second sales and not first sales liable to single point tax, and the revision was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154103</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>