<?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 (2) TMI 1082 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164503</link>
    <description>The note explains that under section 3E of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, compounded tax is available only where the dealer&#039;s total turnover remains within the statutory limit, and only turnover expressly excluded by the Ninth Schedule explanation can be left out. On the facts recorded by the appellate authorities, jewellery bought in a bank auction was not worn-out or beaten jewellery within the excluded category, but was converted into new jewellery and sold as first sale. Excluding that purchase turnover reduced total turnover below the limit, and the factual finding that tax had been paid under section 3E was supported by the record and not shown to be perverse.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 1082 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164503</link>
      <description>The note explains that under section 3E of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, compounded tax is available only where the dealer&#039;s total turnover remains within the statutory limit, and only turnover expressly excluded by the Ninth Schedule explanation can be left out. On the facts recorded by the appellate authorities, jewellery bought in a bank auction was not worn-out or beaten jewellery within the excluded category, but was converted into new jewellery and sold as first sale. Excluding that purchase turnover reduced total turnover below the limit, and the factual finding that tax had been paid under section 3E was supported by the record and not shown to be perverse.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>