<?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>2014 (5) TMI 336 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247409</link>
    <description>Lease receipts under agreements executed before 01.04.1986 were not exempt merely because the contracts pre-dated the charging provision; the taxable event in a transfer of the right to use goods is the transfer itself, and such transactions fell within the tax net once the statutory levy operated. The court also held that the Tribunal was justified in examining the remand portion of the assessment dispute, because the State&#039;s appeal covered the lease turnover, imported goods, inter-State goods, and penalty. The assessment was therefore remanded for fresh factual verification of the true nature of each transaction and the supporting documents, while the penalty issue did not survive at that stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 May 2014 10:54:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355421" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 336 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247409</link>
      <description>Lease receipts under agreements executed before 01.04.1986 were not exempt merely because the contracts pre-dated the charging provision; the taxable event in a transfer of the right to use goods is the transfer itself, and such transactions fell within the tax net once the statutory levy operated. The court also held that the Tribunal was justified in examining the remand portion of the assessment dispute, because the State&#039;s appeal covered the lease turnover, imported goods, inter-State goods, and penalty. The assessment was therefore remanded for fresh factual verification of the true nature of each transaction and the supporting documents, while the penalty issue did not survive at that stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247409</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>