<?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 839 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344568</link>
    <description>Concessional purchase under section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was held unavailable where furnace oil and hytherm oil purchased in Form XVII were used for processing cotton fabric on job work basis for customers, because the statutory benefit applies only to consumables used in manufacturing goods sold by the dealer. Penalty under section 23 was also explained as discretionary, since the authority may impose penalty only after considering relevant facts and circumstances; a maximum levy cannot follow automatically from a finding of violation. The penalty quantum was therefore required to be re-examined on fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=473668" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 839 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344568</link>
      <description>Concessional purchase under section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was held unavailable where furnace oil and hytherm oil purchased in Form XVII were used for processing cotton fabric on job work basis for customers, because the statutory benefit applies only to consumables used in manufacturing goods sold by the dealer. Penalty under section 23 was also explained as discretionary, since the authority may impose penalty only after considering relevant facts and circumstances; a maximum levy cannot follow automatically from a finding of violation. The penalty quantum was therefore required to be re-examined on fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>