<?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 (5) TMI 520 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395487</link>
    <description>Imported goods may be treated as a separate class for sales tax purposes where the classification rests on intelligible differentia and reasonable classification. Applying an earlier Division Bench ruling upholding the same provisions, the Madras HC held that the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act amendments imposing a higher rate on imported goods, including goods imported from Bhutan, were not unconstitutional or inapplicable. The bilateral trade agreement did not override the domestic levy in this context, and the authorities cited by the petitioner did not alter that position. The writ challenge therefore failed, and the amended provisions were held valid and applicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2020 10:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=613595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (5) TMI 520 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395487</link>
      <description>Imported goods may be treated as a separate class for sales tax purposes where the classification rests on intelligible differentia and reasonable classification. Applying an earlier Division Bench ruling upholding the same provisions, the Madras HC held that the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act amendments imposing a higher rate on imported goods, including goods imported from Bhutan, were not unconstitutional or inapplicable. The bilateral trade agreement did not override the domestic levy in this context, and the authorities cited by the petitioner did not alter that position. The writ challenge therefore failed, and the amended provisions were held valid and applicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395487</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>