<?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>2017 (2) TMI 349 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338649</link>
    <description>Detention of goods under the Tamil Nadu VAT framework cannot rest solely on non-production of online Form JJ and the transporter&#039;s Form MM where invoice and lorry receipt are available and the movement is claimed as a stock transfer. Section 69 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 read with Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 requires a sale bill or equivalent supporting document, and the absence of computer-generated forms alone does not justify detention if the statutory documentation is otherwise satisfied. On the stated facts, the detention order and consequential demand for tax and compounding fee were held unsustainable, and release of the goods and vehicle followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2017 08:41:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458001" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 349 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338649</link>
      <description>Detention of goods under the Tamil Nadu VAT framework cannot rest solely on non-production of online Form JJ and the transporter&#039;s Form MM where invoice and lorry receipt are available and the movement is claimed as a stock transfer. Section 69 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 read with Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 requires a sale bill or equivalent supporting document, and the absence of computer-generated forms alone does not justify detention if the statutory documentation is otherwise satisfied. On the stated facts, the detention order and consequential demand for tax and compounding fee were held unsustainable, and release of the goods and vehicle followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338649</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>