<?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>2003 (3) TMI 675 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161289</link>
    <description>An exemption notification is construed strictly by its plain language: sales through canteens run by independent contractors were not covered where the notification was limited to canteens run by the employer or by employees on a co-operative basis, with the prescribed subsidy and no-profit conditions. For the later notification, eligibility depended on the dealer&#039;s total turnover as defined in the sales tax statute, so the turnover limit applied to the business as a whole and not separately to each canteen location. On the penalty aspect, maximum penalty for non-filing of returns could not be imposed without considering bona fides, so the penalty portion required fresh reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:27:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342506" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 675 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161289</link>
      <description>An exemption notification is construed strictly by its plain language: sales through canteens run by independent contractors were not covered where the notification was limited to canteens run by the employer or by employees on a co-operative basis, with the prescribed subsidy and no-profit conditions. For the later notification, eligibility depended on the dealer&#039;s total turnover as defined in the sales tax statute, so the turnover limit applied to the business as a whole and not separately to each canteen location. On the penalty aspect, maximum penalty for non-filing of returns could not be imposed without considering bona fides, so the penalty portion required fresh reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161289</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>