<?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>2021 (3) TMI 891 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405563</link>
    <description>The amended Section 2(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970, effective from 1 April 1993, granted dealers relief by exempting the first Rs. 10 lakhs of turnover from additional sales tax where the taxable turnover did not exceed one crore. The Commissioner&#039;s circular confirmed that the initial slab carried no additional tax under the amended regime. A refusal to split turnover for this purpose was inconsistent with the amendment and circular, because the first Rs. 10 lakhs could not be subjected to additional sales tax. The petitioner was therefore entitled to the amendment&#039;s benefit, and the levy of penalty to that extent was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2021 09:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=639586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (3) TMI 891 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405563</link>
      <description>The amended Section 2(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970, effective from 1 April 1993, granted dealers relief by exempting the first Rs. 10 lakhs of turnover from additional sales tax where the taxable turnover did not exceed one crore. The Commissioner&#039;s circular confirmed that the initial slab carried no additional tax under the amended regime. A refusal to split turnover for this purpose was inconsistent with the amendment and circular, because the first Rs. 10 lakhs could not be subjected to additional sales tax. The petitioner was therefore entitled to the amendment&#039;s benefit, and the levy of penalty to that extent was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405563</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>