<?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>2013 (8) TMI 606 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236314</link>
    <description>Input tax credit under the Tamil Nadu VAT scheme is a statutory concession governed by the tax invoice and the conditions in the Act and Rules. Section 19(20), which requires reversal of excess credit where goods are resold below the purchase price, was construed as a revenue-protective measure within the State&#039;s taxing power and not as an impermissible levy; it was therefore upheld as constitutionally valid. The retrospective operation from 01.01.2007 was also sustained because retrospectivity in fiscal legislation is not invalid by itself, and no fresh tax, undue oppression, or confiscatory burden was shown. The challenge to the provision failed, while statutory remedies under the Act remained available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198721" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 606 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236314</link>
      <description>Input tax credit under the Tamil Nadu VAT scheme is a statutory concession governed by the tax invoice and the conditions in the Act and Rules. Section 19(20), which requires reversal of excess credit where goods are resold below the purchase price, was construed as a revenue-protective measure within the State&#039;s taxing power and not as an impermissible levy; it was therefore upheld as constitutionally valid. The retrospective operation from 01.01.2007 was also sustained because retrospectivity in fiscal legislation is not invalid by itself, and no fresh tax, undue oppression, or confiscatory burden was shown. The challenge to the provision failed, while statutory remedies under the Act remained available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236314</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>