<?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>2010 (10) TMI 937 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158573</link>
    <description>Printing turnover arising from customer-specific orders required independent examination to determine whether the transactions were outright sales or works contracts; because the appellate authorities did not assess the underlying materials or give reasoned findings, the sale characterization was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration. Penalty under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act could be imposed only where tax was collected in contravention of section 22(1), and the authority had to consider the dealer&#039;s explanation and any bona fide belief before acting; as that independent application of mind was absent, the penalty was also set aside and remanded under the pre-amendment provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334039" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 937 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158573</link>
      <description>Printing turnover arising from customer-specific orders required independent examination to determine whether the transactions were outright sales or works contracts; because the appellate authorities did not assess the underlying materials or give reasoned findings, the sale characterization was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration. Penalty under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act could be imposed only where tax was collected in contravention of section 22(1), and the authority had to consider the dealer&#039;s explanation and any bona fide belief before acting; as that independent application of mind was absent, the penalty was also set aside and remanded under the pre-amendment provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158573</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>