<?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>2023 (1) TMI 1133 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433386</link>
    <description>Steel purchased for use in works contract transactions was taxable under Section 3-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 where the assessee could not show that the goods were used in the same form as purchased. The statutory exclusion under Section 3-B(2)(b) applies only when purchased goods from registered dealers are used without conversion, and the Tribunal relied on the assessee&#039;s admission and lack of supporting records to reject that claim. In judicial review under Article 226, the High Court confined itself to the decision-making process and found no perversity, arbitrariness, or procedural infirmity in the Tribunal&#039;s order, so interference was declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2024 17:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=702968" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (1) TMI 1133 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433386</link>
      <description>Steel purchased for use in works contract transactions was taxable under Section 3-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 where the assessee could not show that the goods were used in the same form as purchased. The statutory exclusion under Section 3-B(2)(b) applies only when purchased goods from registered dealers are used without conversion, and the Tribunal relied on the assessee&#039;s admission and lack of supporting records to reject that claim. In judicial review under Article 226, the High Court confined itself to the decision-making process and found no perversity, arbitrariness, or procedural infirmity in the Tribunal&#039;s order, so interference was declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433386</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>