<?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 (3) TMI 668 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160029</link>
    <description>A delegated authority may rescind an exemption notification under the Central Sales Tax Act only prospectively unless the parent statute expressly authorises retrospective withdrawal, so the retrospective cancellation was invalid. Exemption under the notification attached to the taxable sale event: goods sold up to the publication date of the cancellation remained exempt, while unsold stock sold after that date became taxable at the applicable rate. Penalty was not justified because the turnover was disclosed in the accounts and the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that the sales remained exempt, so there was no suppression or wilful violation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Dec 2013 14:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338483" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 668 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160029</link>
      <description>A delegated authority may rescind an exemption notification under the Central Sales Tax Act only prospectively unless the parent statute expressly authorises retrospective withdrawal, so the retrospective cancellation was invalid. Exemption under the notification attached to the taxable sale event: goods sold up to the publication date of the cancellation remained exempt, while unsold stock sold after that date became taxable at the applicable rate. Penalty was not justified because the turnover was disclosed in the accounts and the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that the sales remained exempt, so there was no suppression or wilful violation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>