<?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 (8) TMI 571 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160003</link>
    <description>A statutory bar on collecting additional sales tax from purchasers does not prevent principals from reimbursing agents for tax incurred on tea sales made on their behalf, so such reimbursement is not unlawful collection under section 2(2) and does not attract penalty under section 3-A. A circular directing refund on the contrary premise therefore lacked basis and was treated as unenforceable. For rate determination, sales routed through agents were includible in the principals&#039; aggregate taxable turnover, as Rule 6(h) permits exclusion only where the sales have already been taxed in the agent&#039;s hands. The turnover computation for applying the correct slab rate was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2013 16:32:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338368" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (8) TMI 571 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160003</link>
      <description>A statutory bar on collecting additional sales tax from purchasers does not prevent principals from reimbursing agents for tax incurred on tea sales made on their behalf, so such reimbursement is not unlawful collection under section 2(2) and does not attract penalty under section 3-A. A circular directing refund on the contrary premise therefore lacked basis and was treated as unenforceable. For rate determination, sales routed through agents were includible in the principals&#039; aggregate taxable turnover, as Rule 6(h) permits exclusion only where the sales have already been taxed in the agent&#039;s hands. The turnover computation for applying the correct slab rate was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160003</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>