<?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>2000 (9) TMI 1006 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160116</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that mochai and horsegram are not classified as &quot;pulses&quot; under the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, as their botanical names did not align with those specified in the Act. The Tribunal overturned previous decisions based on this finding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 03 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2013 18:21:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338673" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 1006 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160116</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that mochai and horsegram are not classified as &quot;pulses&quot; under the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, as their botanical names did not align with those specified in the Act. The Tribunal overturned previous decisions based on this finding.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 03 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160116</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>