<?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 558 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159360</link>
    <description>The Court concluded that the Tribunal&#039;s imposition of additional 2% sales tax was not sustainable. The notification under Section 8(5) of the CSTA allowed a reduced tax rate of 2% without the need for &quot;C&quot; forms, distinguishing it from the Sarvotam Vegetables Products case. The modified order of the Tribunal was further modified to delete the additional 2% sales tax, and the Tax Case (Revision) was disposed of without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:54:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336600" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 558 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159360</link>
      <description>The Court concluded that the Tribunal&#039;s imposition of additional 2% sales tax was not sustainable. The notification under Section 8(5) of the CSTA allowed a reduced tax rate of 2% without the need for &quot;C&quot; forms, distinguishing it from the Sarvotam Vegetables Products case. The modified order of the Tribunal was further modified to delete the additional 2% sales tax, and the Tax Case (Revision) was disposed of without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159360</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>