<?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>2005 (8) TMI 655 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163700</link>
    <description>Entry tax liability arose when the motor vehicles entered the local area, and payment of sales tax under a different head did not discharge the statutory obligation under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990. The statutory scheme required compliance in the prescribed manner, and section 4 did not excuse non-payment of entry tax but only provided for reduction or set-off where the Act permitted it. Failure to pay entry tax as required justified the penalty under section 15(2), and the reduced penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 15(1) was sustained. The challenge to the revisional order therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2014 10:01:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351561" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 655 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163700</link>
      <description>Entry tax liability arose when the motor vehicles entered the local area, and payment of sales tax under a different head did not discharge the statutory obligation under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990. The statutory scheme required compliance in the prescribed manner, and section 4 did not excuse non-payment of entry tax but only provided for reduction or set-off where the Act permitted it. Failure to pay entry tax as required justified the penalty under section 15(2), and the reduced penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 15(1) was sustained. The challenge to the revisional order therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>