<?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>2016 (4) TMI 135 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326021</link>
    <description>Goods covered by a manually generated transit pass in an inter-State transaction could not be treated as intended for a local sale, so the local-sale tax demand based on detention was not sustained. The only defect noted was the absence of the consignor&#039;s or consignee&#039;s signature on the transit pass, and release of the detained goods was directed on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,000.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2016 08:06:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 135 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326021</link>
      <description>Goods covered by a manually generated transit pass in an inter-State transaction could not be treated as intended for a local sale, so the local-sale tax demand based on detention was not sustained. The only defect noted was the absence of the consignor&#039;s or consignee&#039;s signature on the transit pass, and release of the detained goods was directed on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,000.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326021</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>