<?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>1986 (1) TMI 362 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154446</link>
    <description>Restaurant supplies of food and drinks were not taxable as sales for the relevant assessment years because the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, as then in force, did not specifically include such transactions within the charging definition. Article 366(29A) of the Constitution expanded legislative competence, but it did not by itself amend the State Act or retrospectively validate a levy not then authorised. The restrictive waiver conditions in G.O. Ms. No. 1187 were also unsustainable, because they treated pending and finalised assessments differently on an assumption that the levy was valid, and the classification was held discriminatory.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:50:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171477" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (1) TMI 362 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154446</link>
      <description>Restaurant supplies of food and drinks were not taxable as sales for the relevant assessment years because the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, as then in force, did not specifically include such transactions within the charging definition. Article 366(29A) of the Constitution expanded legislative competence, but it did not by itself amend the State Act or retrospectively validate a levy not then authorised. The restrictive waiver conditions in G.O. Ms. No. 1187 were also unsustainable, because they treated pending and finalised assessments differently on an assumption that the levy was valid, and the classification was held discriminatory.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154446</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>