<?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 (7) TMI 401 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158772</link>
    <description>The Madras High Court upheld a Tribunal remand directing verification of whether groundnut kernel had already suffered single-point tax in the sellers&#039; hands, which would determine whether the assessees&#039; purchases were exempt as second purchases. The assessees claimed exemption on that basis, while the revenue argued that the sellers were only commission agents or brokers and that the purchases were the first taxable point. Because the bills and surrounding circumstances did not conclusively establish prior tax payment, the assessing authority had to examine the relevant records and facts before fresh disposal on merits. No interference with the remand was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 18:13:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334703" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (7) TMI 401 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158772</link>
      <description>The Madras High Court upheld a Tribunal remand directing verification of whether groundnut kernel had already suffered single-point tax in the sellers&#039; hands, which would determine whether the assessees&#039; purchases were exempt as second purchases. The assessees claimed exemption on that basis, while the revenue argued that the sellers were only commission agents or brokers and that the purchases were the first taxable point. Because the bills and surrounding circumstances did not conclusively establish prior tax payment, the assessing authority had to examine the relevant records and facts before fresh disposal on merits. No interference with the remand was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158772</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>