<?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>1992 (3) TMI 330 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156965</link>
    <description>Exemption from sales tax on iron and steel end-products was conditional, not absolute: the manufacturer had to produce purchase declarations and prove that the raw materials had already suffered tax, with compliance examined transaction by transaction by the assessing authority. An earlier Division Bench ruling removed only the territorial restriction on re-rolling activity outside Tamil Nadu; it did not waive the factual conditions for exemption. The 17 March 1986 notification was treated as curing the earlier defect by providing a mechanism to ensure tax remittance at one stage and verify compliance. A blanket declaration in writ jurisdiction was therefore unavailable under Article 226.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:59:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173991" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (3) TMI 330 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156965</link>
      <description>Exemption from sales tax on iron and steel end-products was conditional, not absolute: the manufacturer had to produce purchase declarations and prove that the raw materials had already suffered tax, with compliance examined transaction by transaction by the assessing authority. An earlier Division Bench ruling removed only the territorial restriction on re-rolling activity outside Tamil Nadu; it did not waive the factual conditions for exemption. The 17 March 1986 notification was treated as curing the earlier defect by providing a mechanism to ensure tax remittance at one stage and verify compliance. A blanket declaration in writ jurisdiction was therefore unavailable under Article 226.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156965</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>