<?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 (9) TMI 562 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332301</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in applying only one clause of the Explanation to Section 12(3)(b) and failed to consider other applicable clauses. It found the penalty unjustified as there was no suppression of turnover and the transaction was bona fide reported. The Court allowed the Tax Case Revision Petition, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441083" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 562 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332301</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in applying only one clause of the Explanation to Section 12(3)(b) and failed to consider other applicable clauses. It found the penalty unjustified as there was no suppression of turnover and the transaction was bona fide reported. The Court allowed the Tax Case Revision Petition, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332301</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>