<?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 (12) TMI 363 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158897</link>
    <description>Section 12-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was upheld as a valid machinery provision within the State&#039;s legislative competence because it enables the assessing authority, after notice and enquiry, to test whether declared sale prices reflect the real consensual value and to make a best judgment assessment where under-invoicing appears. It was not treated as creating a new charge or altering the bargain between the parties. Rule 18-C was also upheld because it only supplies guiding factors, including comparable prices and permissible variations, to assist the assessment of true turnover; the 15 per cent reference was treated as a safeguard and not an enlargement of statutory power.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Nov 2013 12:00:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (12) TMI 363 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158897</link>
      <description>Section 12-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was upheld as a valid machinery provision within the State&#039;s legislative competence because it enables the assessing authority, after notice and enquiry, to test whether declared sale prices reflect the real consensual value and to make a best judgment assessment where under-invoicing appears. It was not treated as creating a new charge or altering the bargain between the parties. Rule 18-C was also upheld because it only supplies guiding factors, including comparable prices and permissible variations, to assist the assessment of true turnover; the 15 per cent reference was treated as a safeguard and not an enlargement of statutory power.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158897</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>