<?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 (7) TMI 829 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345717</link>
    <description>The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the order dated 18.06.2004, based on the exemption of &#039;appalam&#039; and &#039;pappad&#039; by the Sales Tax department since 1989. Emphasizing that no tax can be levied on already exempted goods, the court criticized the proposed penalties on these items. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the court clarified that &#039;appalam&#039; and &#039;pappad&#039; are the same, rejecting any distinctions made by authorities. As the assessment was completed and the items were exempted, the court set aside the order, stating no further proof was needed. No costs were awarded, and the department could request documents as per the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2017 08:13:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=482770" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 829 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345717</link>
      <description>The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the order dated 18.06.2004, based on the exemption of &#039;appalam&#039; and &#039;pappad&#039; by the Sales Tax department since 1989. Emphasizing that no tax can be levied on already exempted goods, the court criticized the proposed penalties on these items. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the court clarified that &#039;appalam&#039; and &#039;pappad&#039; are the same, rejecting any distinctions made by authorities. As the assessment was completed and the items were exempted, the court set aside the order, stating no further proof was needed. No costs were awarded, and the department could request documents as per the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345717</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>