<?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>2012 (2) TMI 457 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167984</link>
    <description>A price difference between first and second sales, by itself, did not justify treating the transactions as under-invoiced sales for best judgment assessment. Section 12A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act operates only when the assessing authority is satisfied, on relevant materials, that sales were shown at abnormally low prices with intent to evade tax. Rule 18C requires enquiry into prevailing market price, comparable sales, and reasons for variation, including relationship between parties, packing, transport and after-sales service. Because those mandatory enquiries were not undertaken and the dealer&#039;s objections were not properly examined, invocation of section 12A read with rule 18C was held unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2015 12:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373113" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (2) TMI 457 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167984</link>
      <description>A price difference between first and second sales, by itself, did not justify treating the transactions as under-invoiced sales for best judgment assessment. Section 12A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act operates only when the assessing authority is satisfied, on relevant materials, that sales were shown at abnormally low prices with intent to evade tax. Rule 18C requires enquiry into prevailing market price, comparable sales, and reasons for variation, including relationship between parties, packing, transport and after-sales service. Because those mandatory enquiries were not undertaken and the dealer&#039;s objections were not properly examined, invocation of section 12A read with rule 18C was held unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167984</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>