<?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>2015 (4) TMI 1125 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183747</link>
    <description>A deduction for sales tax collected from turnover was disallowed where the assessee failed to produce sale invoices, price lists, sales registers, or other supporting records to show that the collection was inclusive of tax and to establish the exact tax component. Penalty under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was held unwarranted because the turnover was already reflected in the assessee&#039;s own books, there was no material showing wilful suppression or non-disclosure, and the penalty was also found to have been imposed beyond the permissible period. The Tribunal&#039;s deletion of penalty was therefore upheld, while the unsupported deduction claim was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:41:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432280" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 1125 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183747</link>
      <description>A deduction for sales tax collected from turnover was disallowed where the assessee failed to produce sale invoices, price lists, sales registers, or other supporting records to show that the collection was inclusive of tax and to establish the exact tax component. Penalty under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was held unwarranted because the turnover was already reflected in the assessee&#039;s own books, there was no material showing wilful suppression or non-disclosure, and the penalty was also found to have been imposed beyond the permissible period. The Tribunal&#039;s deletion of penalty was therefore upheld, while the unsupported deduction claim was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183747</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>