<?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>2014 (3) TMI 340 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244885</link>
    <description>Sales are inter-State only when the movement of goods is pursuant to, and an incident of, the contract of sale; on the facts, there was no material showing that dispatch from Chennai to Andaman was contractually required, so the turnover was properly treated as local sales under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Penalty under Section 16(2) could not be sustained for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 because the turnover had been disclosed in the books and there was no finding of wilful suppression or mala fide intention, so the penalty was deleted. For 1990-91, the reduced penalty at 50% was upheld because the difference between assessed and returned turnover justified interference to that limited extent only.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2014 17:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 340 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244885</link>
      <description>Sales are inter-State only when the movement of goods is pursuant to, and an incident of, the contract of sale; on the facts, there was no material showing that dispatch from Chennai to Andaman was contractually required, so the turnover was properly treated as local sales under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Penalty under Section 16(2) could not be sustained for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 because the turnover had been disclosed in the books and there was no finding of wilful suppression or mala fide intention, so the penalty was deleted. For 1990-91, the reduced penalty at 50% was upheld because the difference between assessed and returned turnover justified interference to that limited extent only.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244885</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>