<?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>2001 (12) TMI 844 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160902</link>
    <description>Article 366(29A) enlarged the concept of sale to include supply of goods by an unincorporated association to its members for valuable consideration, making such transactions taxable where the sales tax law so provides. Registration under the societies law does not by itself amount to incorporation, so the association remained an unincorporated body for tax purposes. Even if treated as incorporated, supplies by incorporated bodies to members are not immune from sales tax. The pre-amendment mutuality principle could not override the post-amendment statutory levy, and an Article 14 challenge based on an erroneous benefit to another entity was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:20:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340858" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 844 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160902</link>
      <description>Article 366(29A) enlarged the concept of sale to include supply of goods by an unincorporated association to its members for valuable consideration, making such transactions taxable where the sales tax law so provides. Registration under the societies law does not by itself amount to incorporation, so the association remained an unincorporated body for tax purposes. Even if treated as incorporated, supplies by incorporated bodies to members are not immune from sales tax. The pre-amendment mutuality principle could not override the post-amendment statutory levy, and an Article 14 challenge based on an erroneous benefit to another entity was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160902</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>