<?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 (2) TMI 438 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161322</link>
    <description>Grinding wheel and similar goods could not be classified as materials used in painting and varnishing under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Applying the trade parlance test and the functional character test, the Tribunal held that such goods are known as tools for grinding, shaping and polishing, not as paint-related materials, so the 16% tax classification was unsustainable. The Commissioner&#039;s clarification was only an executive understanding and could not override the plain statutory entry or support a contrary classification. Reassessment orders based on that erroneous clarification were therefore unsustainable and were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342608" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 438 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161322</link>
      <description>Grinding wheel and similar goods could not be classified as materials used in painting and varnishing under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Applying the trade parlance test and the functional character test, the Tribunal held that such goods are known as tools for grinding, shaping and polishing, not as paint-related materials, so the 16% tax classification was unsustainable. The Commissioner&#039;s clarification was only an executive understanding and could not override the plain statutory entry or support a contrary classification. Reassessment orders based on that erroneous clarification were therefore unsustainable and were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161322</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>