<?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 (5) TMI 1548 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200396</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the Tax Case Revision filed by the revenue, canceling the penalty levied due to no suppression of sale in the turnover. The decision aligned with previous rulings, establishing consistency in sales tax law application. The judgment upheld the legal position on taxation of bleaching and dyeing contracts, offering clarity for future cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:34:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514895" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 1548 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200396</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the Tax Case Revision filed by the revenue, canceling the penalty levied due to no suppression of sale in the turnover. The decision aligned with previous rulings, establishing consistency in sales tax law application. The judgment upheld the legal position on taxation of bleaching and dyeing contracts, offering clarity for future cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200396</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>