<?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 (9) TMI 592 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347835</link>
    <description>A separately incorporated company with its own sales tax registration and PAN could not have its registration cancelled merely on the allegation that it was formed to avoid additional sales tax. The HC held that lifting the corporate veil did not establish any change in the statutory incidence of additional sales tax, which remained governed by the principal&#039;s liability under Explanation I to Section 2(1)(aa) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Departmental recognition of the company as a distinct entity and the relevant clarification supported that position. The cancellation reason was therefore unsound, and the registration cancellation was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2017 07:29:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489043" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 592 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347835</link>
      <description>A separately incorporated company with its own sales tax registration and PAN could not have its registration cancelled merely on the allegation that it was formed to avoid additional sales tax. The HC held that lifting the corporate veil did not establish any change in the statutory incidence of additional sales tax, which remained governed by the principal&#039;s liability under Explanation I to Section 2(1)(aa) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Departmental recognition of the company as a distinct entity and the relevant clarification supported that position. The cancellation reason was therefore unsound, and the registration cancellation was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347835</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>