<?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 (9) TMI 875 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158650</link>
    <description>A taxing entry specifically naming theodolites and survey instruments prevails over a general entry for electronic goods, because classification depends on the commodity&#039;s common parlance and descriptive identity rather than the mere presence of electronic features. Applying that approach, imported electronic survey instruments were held classifiable as survey instruments under the specific schedule entry, attracting the higher rate. On the penalty question, the court held that once the classification was clear and not reasonably open to two views, the assessee&#039;s plea of bona fide interpretation could not defeat penalty; the penalty was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334291" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 875 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158650</link>
      <description>A taxing entry specifically naming theodolites and survey instruments prevails over a general entry for electronic goods, because classification depends on the commodity&#039;s common parlance and descriptive identity rather than the mere presence of electronic features. Applying that approach, imported electronic survey instruments were held classifiable as survey instruments under the specific schedule entry, attracting the higher rate. On the penalty question, the court held that once the classification was clear and not reasonably open to two views, the assessee&#039;s plea of bona fide interpretation could not defeat penalty; the penalty was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158650</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>