<?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 (8) TMI 595 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411017</link>
    <description>Input tax credit could not be reversed for unavoidable manufacturing loss of inputs under the provision aimed at goods lost, stolen, destroyed, written off, or given away as gifts or free samples. The court distinguished intrinsic process loss from external contingencies covered by the blocking rule, and treated inevitable consumption loss in manufacture as outside its scope. On that basis, reversal of input tax credit for inherent manufacturing loss was not justified, and the assessment challenge succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2022 11:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=652762" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (8) TMI 595 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411017</link>
      <description>Input tax credit could not be reversed for unavoidable manufacturing loss of inputs under the provision aimed at goods lost, stolen, destroyed, written off, or given away as gifts or free samples. The court distinguished intrinsic process loss from external contingencies covered by the blocking rule, and treated inevitable consumption loss in manufacture as outside its scope. On that basis, reversal of input tax credit for inherent manufacturing loss was not justified, and the assessment challenge succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411017</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>