<?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>1998 (2) TMI 557 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159350</link>
    <description>The Court dismissed the appeal, clarifying that goods need not physically return to the State of origin to qualify for a sales return deduction under Section 8A of the CST Act. However, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the statutory conditions for claiming the deduction. The Court emphasized considering commercial realities and legislative intent in interpreting the provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:42:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336491" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 557 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159350</link>
      <description>The Court dismissed the appeal, clarifying that goods need not physically return to the State of origin to qualify for a sales return deduction under Section 8A of the CST Act. However, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the statutory conditions for claiming the deduction. The Court emphasized considering commercial realities and legislative intent in interpreting the provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159350</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>