<?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>2007 (11) TMI 570 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163590</link>
    <description>Diesel generating sets supplied to BSNL were held outside the concessional notification for telecom switching equipment and power supply based power plants, because the statutory classification treated them as separate generator sets and the notification could not be expanded by trade parlance or user-based understanding. The clarification under the sales tax provision was also treated as regulatory and administrative, not quasi-judicial, so no prior personal hearing or external expert opinion was required in the absence of an express statutory mandate. The impugned clarification was upheld and the writ challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351345" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (11) TMI 570 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163590</link>
      <description>Diesel generating sets supplied to BSNL were held outside the concessional notification for telecom switching equipment and power supply based power plants, because the statutory classification treated them as separate generator sets and the notification could not be expanded by trade parlance or user-based understanding. The clarification under the sales tax provision was also treated as regulatory and administrative, not quasi-judicial, so no prior personal hearing or external expert opinion was required in the absence of an express statutory mandate. The impugned clarification was upheld and the writ challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>