<?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>2010 (6) TMI 721 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164260</link>
    <description>A welfare exemption scheme for sales tax exempt diesel authorised three supply channels for fishermen, and the governing orders required authorities to assess actual need, issue indents and prevent misuse, not rank authorised outlets differently. The Court stated that, in the absence of express sanction in the Government Orders, the Fisheries Department could not impose a discriminatory monthly ceiling that favoured Government-owned or cooperative outlets over duly authorised private bunk operators. Executive control remained limited to regulation and anti-misuse measures, and could not extend to arbitrary denial of supply to otherwise eligible authorised dealers. The writ petitions were therefore allowed, and the petitioners were to be processed on par with other authorised outlets subject to the prescribed ceiling and conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2014 16:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353437" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (6) TMI 721 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164260</link>
      <description>A welfare exemption scheme for sales tax exempt diesel authorised three supply channels for fishermen, and the governing orders required authorities to assess actual need, issue indents and prevent misuse, not rank authorised outlets differently. The Court stated that, in the absence of express sanction in the Government Orders, the Fisheries Department could not impose a discriminatory monthly ceiling that favoured Government-owned or cooperative outlets over duly authorised private bunk operators. Executive control remained limited to regulation and anti-misuse measures, and could not extend to arbitrary denial of supply to otherwise eligible authorised dealers. The writ petitions were therefore allowed, and the petitioners were to be processed on par with other authorised outlets subject to the prescribed ceiling and conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164260</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>