<?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 (4) TMI 1023 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165966</link>
    <description>A circular issued without substantive statutory authority cannot override the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, and a circular contrary to the statute has no legal force. On the facts, the court noted that the earlier circular on synthetic tarpaulin did not examine the petitioner&#039;s product, while the later circular considered the specific commodity and treated it as taxable under the residuary entry. The challenge to the circular was rejected. For the assessment orders, the petitioners had an efficacious statutory revision remedy under Section 54, so the writ court declined interference and relegated them to revision with liberty to proceed within the time granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2014 13:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363425" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 1023 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165966</link>
      <description>A circular issued without substantive statutory authority cannot override the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, and a circular contrary to the statute has no legal force. On the facts, the court noted that the earlier circular on synthetic tarpaulin did not examine the petitioner&#039;s product, while the later circular considered the specific commodity and treated it as taxable under the residuary entry. The challenge to the circular was rejected. For the assessment orders, the petitioners had an efficacious statutory revision remedy under Section 54, so the writ court declined interference and relegated them to revision with liberty to proceed within the time granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165966</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>