<?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>2019 (2) TMI 130 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374503</link>
    <description>Tax exemption under the Government order for procurement of colour television sets, issued for a welfare supply scheme, continued to apply where the manufactured sets were ultimately distributed to Government departments and institutions instead of individual families. A later policy change stopping further procurement did not automatically withdraw the exemption for sets already manufactured and supplied under the same scheme objective. A mere change in the end beneficiaries did not alter the exempt character of the transaction, and promissory estoppel supported continuation of the benefit. The tax levy on the disputed supply was therefore not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2019 08:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=556327" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 130 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374503</link>
      <description>Tax exemption under the Government order for procurement of colour television sets, issued for a welfare supply scheme, continued to apply where the manufactured sets were ultimately distributed to Government departments and institutions instead of individual families. A later policy change stopping further procurement did not automatically withdraw the exemption for sets already manufactured and supplied under the same scheme objective. A mere change in the end beneficiaries did not alter the exempt character of the transaction, and promissory estoppel supported continuation of the benefit. The tax levy on the disputed supply was therefore not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>