<?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 (12) TMI 208 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157314</link>
    <description>The 1984 amendments enlarging the definitions of dealer, goods, sale, turnover and works contract were upheld as consistent with the Forty-sixth Constitutional Amendment and the expanded meaning of sale under article 366(29-A)(b). Section 3-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the Fourth Schedule were also sustained because they could be read as taxing only the turnover representing transfer of property in goods involved in works contracts within constitutional limits. Rules 6-A and 6-B were struck down as unconstitutional and unenforceable because their flat deduction scheme and machinery did not adequately confine assessment to constitutionally taxable turnover.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 18:49:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (12) TMI 208 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157314</link>
      <description>The 1984 amendments enlarging the definitions of dealer, goods, sale, turnover and works contract were upheld as consistent with the Forty-sixth Constitutional Amendment and the expanded meaning of sale under article 366(29-A)(b). Section 3-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the Fourth Schedule were also sustained because they could be read as taxing only the turnover representing transfer of property in goods involved in works contracts within constitutional limits. Rules 6-A and 6-B were struck down as unconstitutional and unenforceable because their flat deduction scheme and machinery did not adequately confine assessment to constitutionally taxable turnover.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157314</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>