<?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>1997 (8) TMI 490 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159840</link>
    <description>The Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision on the classification of arc carbon as cinematographic equipment for taxation purposes. It ruled that the petitioner&#039;s transactions involving the dispatch of printed calendars to dealers constituted taxable sales as the petitioner had ordered, paid for, and acquired ownership of the calendars before supplying them to dealers. Additionally, the Court found no provision in the statute allowing for a concessional rate of tax without &quot;C&quot; forms, thus affirming the rejection of the petitioner&#039;s claim. The Court dismissed all revision petitions, finding no merit in the petitioner&#039;s arguments on the issues raised.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:49:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337927" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 490 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159840</link>
      <description>The Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision on the classification of arc carbon as cinematographic equipment for taxation purposes. It ruled that the petitioner&#039;s transactions involving the dispatch of printed calendars to dealers constituted taxable sales as the petitioner had ordered, paid for, and acquired ownership of the calendars before supplying them to dealers. Additionally, the Court found no provision in the statute allowing for a concessional rate of tax without &quot;C&quot; forms, thus affirming the rejection of the petitioner&#039;s claim. The Court dismissed all revision petitions, finding no merit in the petitioner&#039;s arguments on the issues raised.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159840</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>