<?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>1990 (10) TMI 345 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156653</link>
    <description>An exemption notification under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, that did not state a commencement date was held to operate from the date of its publication. Section 53(4)(b) expressly fixed publication as the effective date for notifications unless a different day was specified, so the notification could not be treated as retrospectively effective from the beginning of the assessment year. The Supreme Court authority relied on by the assessee was distinguished because the statute considered there lacked an equivalent commencement provision. The assessee&#039;s contention was rejected and the Revenue&#039;s position was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2013 14:07:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173679" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (10) TMI 345 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156653</link>
      <description>An exemption notification under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, that did not state a commencement date was held to operate from the date of its publication. Section 53(4)(b) expressly fixed publication as the effective date for notifications unless a different day was specified, so the notification could not be treated as retrospectively effective from the beginning of the assessment year. The Supreme Court authority relied on by the assessee was distinguished because the statute considered there lacked an equivalent commencement provision. The assessee&#039;s contention was rejected and the Revenue&#039;s position was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156653</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>