<?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>Penalty under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act could not be sustained by invoking the explanation for concessional-rate turnover where the disputed turnover was already reflected in the books of accounts and there was no specific concealment. The dealer had treated the transaction as a works contract and paid tax under the applicable special provision, so the case did not fall within the explanation relied on by the Revenue. Penalty was therefore not automatic merely because a revised assessment was made, and the proper treatment of the turnover had to be examined under the other applicable explanatory clauses. The revision was allowed and the penalty set aside.</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>Penalty under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act could not be sustained by invoking the explanation for concessional-rate turnover where the disputed turnover was already reflected in the books of accounts and there was no specific concealment. The dealer had treated the transaction as a works contract and paid tax under the applicable special provision, so the case did not fall within the explanation relied on by the Revenue. Penalty was therefore not automatic merely because a revised assessment was made, and the proper treatment of the turnover had to be examined under the other applicable explanatory clauses. The revision was allowed and the penalty set aside.</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>