<?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>2009 (4) TMI 836 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158619</link>
    <description>A dealer claiming exemption for consignment sales must prove actual movement of goods from Tamil Nadu to another State. The lorry receipts relied on were denied by the transport operators, the supporting papers were only agent-maintained records outside the State, and no other-State assessment order was produced. On that evidence, inter-State movement was not established, so the turnover was treated as intra-State sales and brought to tax. Once the return was found incomplete and incorrect on the same taxable turnover, the statutory basis for penalty was attracted. The assessment and the penalty were therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2014 12:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334183" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 836 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158619</link>
      <description>A dealer claiming exemption for consignment sales must prove actual movement of goods from Tamil Nadu to another State. The lorry receipts relied on were denied by the transport operators, the supporting papers were only agent-maintained records outside the State, and no other-State assessment order was produced. On that evidence, inter-State movement was not established, so the turnover was treated as intra-State sales and brought to tax. Once the return was found incomplete and incorrect on the same taxable turnover, the statutory basis for penalty was attracted. The assessment and the penalty were therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158619</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>