<?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>2011 (9) TMI 887 - Madras High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166517</link>
    <description>Explanation V to section 2(1)(aa) of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act sought to treat the total value of works contracts taxed under section 7C of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act as taxable turnover for additional sales tax. The text states that this went beyond clarification because an Explanation cannot enlarge a charging provision or create a new taxable base. It further notes that, for contractors under the compounded levy scheme, the statute did not require determination of taxable turnover in the ordinary sense. On that basis, the explanation was held unconstitutional and beyond the State Legislature&#039;s competence, and the additional sales tax demand could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2014 18:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 887 - Madras High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166517</link>
      <description>Explanation V to section 2(1)(aa) of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act sought to treat the total value of works contracts taxed under section 7C of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act as taxable turnover for additional sales tax. The text states that this went beyond clarification because an Explanation cannot enlarge a charging provision or create a new taxable base. It further notes that, for contractors under the compounded levy scheme, the statute did not require determination of taxable turnover in the ordinary sense. On that basis, the explanation was held unconstitutional and beyond the State Legislature&#039;s competence, and the additional sales tax demand could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166517</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>