<?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>2018 (2) TMI 2085 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304793</link>
    <description>Exemption for packing material sold to exporters was upheld because the prescribed exporter certificate was produced and the paper board was shown to be used for packing export goods or for conversion into export packing cases; the buyer&#039;s further conversion into cartons did not defeat the export-linked use. Additional sales tax had to be computed separately for the pre-amendment period up to 31.07.1996 and the period thereafter, because the statutory regime changed mid-year and the unamended provision applied only to the earlier period. The Tribunal&#039;s refusal to restore the levy was therefore sustained, and the revenue challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2022 14:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=694063" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 2085 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304793</link>
      <description>Exemption for packing material sold to exporters was upheld because the prescribed exporter certificate was produced and the paper board was shown to be used for packing export goods or for conversion into export packing cases; the buyer&#039;s further conversion into cartons did not defeat the export-linked use. Additional sales tax had to be computed separately for the pre-amendment period up to 31.07.1996 and the period thereafter, because the statutory regime changed mid-year and the unamended provision applied only to the earlier period. The Tribunal&#039;s refusal to restore the levy was therefore sustained, and the revenue challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304793</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>