<?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>2018 (8) TMI 450 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364978</link>
    <description>Purchase turnover of raw materials obtained against Form XVII declarations and used to manufacture goods exported outside the State could not be assessed under Section 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Following Tube Investment of India Ltd., the Madras HC held that export of the manufactured goods amounted to a sale for the first part of Section 3(4), so the corresponding concessional purchase turnover was not liable to tax merely because the finished goods were sold by export. The substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue, the revision was dismissed, and the Tribunal&#039;s order in favour of the dealer was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2018 07:25:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=530056" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 450 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364978</link>
      <description>Purchase turnover of raw materials obtained against Form XVII declarations and used to manufacture goods exported outside the State could not be assessed under Section 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Following Tube Investment of India Ltd., the Madras HC held that export of the manufactured goods amounted to a sale for the first part of Section 3(4), so the corresponding concessional purchase turnover was not liable to tax merely because the finished goods were sold by export. The substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue, the revision was dismissed, and the Tribunal&#039;s order in favour of the dealer was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364978</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>