<?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 (3) TMI 450 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393306</link>
    <description>A dealer&#039;s registration under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 does not automatically lapse because its manufactured goods move into the GST regime, and the right to buy the specified commodities in inter-State trade against C forms continues where registration remains valid. The note further states that a circular restricting issuance of C forms by classifying dealers was beyond the Commissioner&#039;s power, because the relevant State law authorises clarification on specific tax issues but not a general denial of statutory benefits. The circular was also described as violating Article 14 for irrational classification and want of hearing, and the consequential notices were invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2020 12:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=606565" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 450 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393306</link>
      <description>A dealer&#039;s registration under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 does not automatically lapse because its manufactured goods move into the GST regime, and the right to buy the specified commodities in inter-State trade against C forms continues where registration remains valid. The note further states that a circular restricting issuance of C forms by classifying dealers was beyond the Commissioner&#039;s power, because the relevant State law authorises clarification on specific tax issues but not a general denial of statutory benefits. The circular was also described as violating Article 14 for irrational classification and want of hearing, and the consequential notices were invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393306</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>