<?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>2020 (2) TMI 472 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392028</link>
    <description>The Tamil Nadu VAT definition of &quot;capital goods&quot; under section 2(11) was interpreted by distinguishing goods falling under clause (a) from those under clauses (b) to (g), with use in the State treated as a material consideration for the lower tax entry. On the available record, the petitioner&#039;s goods were not conclusively shown to satisfy the relevant limb of the definition, so the classification issue could not be finally resolved. Because the factual basis for applying the statutory definition was unclear, the assessment was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh speaking order after hearing the petitioner and applying the governing legal position.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2020 07:59:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=603597" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 472 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392028</link>
      <description>The Tamil Nadu VAT definition of &quot;capital goods&quot; under section 2(11) was interpreted by distinguishing goods falling under clause (a) from those under clauses (b) to (g), with use in the State treated as a material consideration for the lower tax entry. On the available record, the petitioner&#039;s goods were not conclusively shown to satisfy the relevant limb of the definition, so the classification issue could not be finally resolved. Because the factual basis for applying the statutory definition was unclear, the assessment was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh speaking order after hearing the petitioner and applying the governing legal position.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392028</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>