<?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>2006 (2) TMI 601 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162033</link>
    <description>A consignment transfer supported by form F and other records was treated as exempt under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, because the movement of goods to out-of-State agents was proved and the later revision could not recharacterise the same transaction as a direct inter-State sale merely due to advance payments. Penalty under section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, read with section 9(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, was also found unsustainable because the turnover had been disclosed, the exemption had originally been accepted, and there was no wilful suppression or escaped turnover. The original exemption was restored and the penalty order set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:14:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346009" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 601 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162033</link>
      <description>A consignment transfer supported by form F and other records was treated as exempt under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, because the movement of goods to out-of-State agents was proved and the later revision could not recharacterise the same transaction as a direct inter-State sale merely due to advance payments. Penalty under section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, read with section 9(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, was also found unsustainable because the turnover had been disclosed, the exemption had originally been accepted, and there was no wilful suppression or escaped turnover. The original exemption was restored and the penalty order set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>