<?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 (9) TMI 530 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163905</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the petitioner could not claim exemption under section 8(2A) of the CST Act due to the specific condition imposed by the State law regarding jaggery sales. The court held that the exemption under the State law was conditional, based on turnover thresholds, and not a general exemption, thus preventing the petitioner from availing the benefits under the CST Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:26:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352134" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 530 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163905</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the petitioner could not claim exemption under section 8(2A) of the CST Act due to the specific condition imposed by the State law regarding jaggery sales. The court held that the exemption under the State law was conditional, based on turnover thresholds, and not a general exemption, thus preventing the petitioner from availing the benefits under the CST Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163905</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>