<?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>2000 (4) TMI 809 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162255</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that they were entitled to benefits under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, if they could prove the purchase was for export. The court directed the respondents to release the sandalwood upon compliance with the bank guarantee condition and emphasized the need for clear guidelines from the Forest Department for future auctions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:24:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346791" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 809 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162255</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that they were entitled to benefits under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, if they could prove the purchase was for export. The court directed the respondents to release the sandalwood upon compliance with the bank guarantee condition and emphasized the need for clear guidelines from the Forest Department for future auctions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162255</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>