<?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 (6) TMI 790 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344519</link>
    <description>Form C declarations supporting concessional tax under Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act could not be rejected where the inter-State sales were genuine and the only objection was that the declarations referred to the date of delivery rather than the date of despatch. The provisos to Rule 12(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules were held not to require such a strict reading as to defeat the statutory benefit, and departmental guidance against rejection on insignificant technical grounds was noted. The assessee was therefore entitled to concessional tax, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, including the alternative contention on turnover.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=473545" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 790 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344519</link>
      <description>Form C declarations supporting concessional tax under Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act could not be rejected where the inter-State sales were genuine and the only objection was that the declarations referred to the date of delivery rather than the date of despatch. The provisos to Rule 12(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules were held not to require such a strict reading as to defeat the statutory benefit, and departmental guidance against rejection on insignificant technical grounds was noted. The assessee was therefore entitled to concessional tax, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, including the alternative contention on turnover.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344519</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>