<?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 (7) TMI 944 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160630</link>
    <description>A sales tax concession under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was held to depend on the dealer as a whole, not merely on the commodity for which relief was claimed. The notification&#039;s condition requiring no branch transfer or consignment transfer outside the State during the year was found to be dealer-specific, and a contrary departmental clarification was treated as inconsistent with the plain wording. On the facts stated, branch transfer of the relevant goods defeated eligibility for the concessional rate. The condition was also upheld as a valid fiscal restriction, not unconstitutional under Articles 301 and 304(a), because it applied to prevent revenue loss and did not amount to impermissible trade discrimination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Dec 2013 12:08:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 944 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160630</link>
      <description>A sales tax concession under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was held to depend on the dealer as a whole, not merely on the commodity for which relief was claimed. The notification&#039;s condition requiring no branch transfer or consignment transfer outside the State during the year was found to be dealer-specific, and a contrary departmental clarification was treated as inconsistent with the plain wording. On the facts stated, branch transfer of the relevant goods defeated eligibility for the concessional rate. The condition was also upheld as a valid fiscal restriction, not unconstitutional under Articles 301 and 304(a), because it applied to prevent revenue loss and did not amount to impermissible trade discrimination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160630</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>