<?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>1995 (3) TMI 447 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158294</link>
    <description>The article explains that a registered dealer purchasing raw materials from the Forest Department for manufacture of soap and talcum powder could claim concessional sales tax under section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, where the finished goods fell within the First Schedule. It states that the Act deems the State Government and its departments to be dealers, and section 22(1) treats the Government as a registered dealer for tax collection purposes, so the Forest Department could not deny Form XVII on the ground that it was not a registered dealer. It further notes that a tender condition requiring payment at the prevailing rate could not override the statutory concession, and excess tax collected was refundable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Oct 2013 17:05:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=332853" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 447 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158294</link>
      <description>The article explains that a registered dealer purchasing raw materials from the Forest Department for manufacture of soap and talcum powder could claim concessional sales tax under section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, where the finished goods fell within the First Schedule. It states that the Act deems the State Government and its departments to be dealers, and section 22(1) treats the Government as a registered dealer for tax collection purposes, so the Forest Department could not deny Form XVII on the ground that it was not a registered dealer. It further notes that a tender condition requiring payment at the prevailing rate could not override the statutory concession, and excess tax collected was refundable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158294</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>