<?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 (8) TMI 1366 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161729</link>
    <description>Section 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was treated as wide enough to cover export-related turnover where goods purchased at concessional rate were not otherwise sold but despatched outside the State. The Commissioner&#039;s 1999 and 2000 circulars were understood as explanatory formulae for computing taxable turnover, not as prospectively confined amendments. On that basis, the reassessed turnover could validly include export sales, the revised notice and assessment were upheld, and the challenge to quashing the order failed. The Tribunal also rejected reliance on Articles 14 and 141 and noted that an alternative statutory appeal did not warrant interference on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2014 18:31:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344903" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 1366 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161729</link>
      <description>Section 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was treated as wide enough to cover export-related turnover where goods purchased at concessional rate were not otherwise sold but despatched outside the State. The Commissioner&#039;s 1999 and 2000 circulars were understood as explanatory formulae for computing taxable turnover, not as prospectively confined amendments. On that basis, the reassessed turnover could validly include export sales, the revised notice and assessment were upheld, and the challenge to quashing the order failed. The Tribunal also rejected reliance on Articles 14 and 141 and noted that an alternative statutory appeal did not warrant interference on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161729</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>