<?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>2025 (1) TMI 665 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764601</link>
    <description>Sale proceeds from auction of unredeemed pledged goods were treated as taxable turnover of the person carrying on the underlying business, and the separate role of the auctioneer did not alter that liability. Penalty for non-filing of returns under Section 12(3)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was held to follow automatically, and the objection that it could arise only in a best judgment assessment was rejected. The assessing authority had wrongly applied a flat tax rate for all assessment years despite different rates for different periods, so the demand required rectification on a period-wise basis. The assessee was also entitled to object to the quantification of penal interest and to be heard on the relevant period before final orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2025 07:36:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=789003" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 665 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764601</link>
      <description>Sale proceeds from auction of unredeemed pledged goods were treated as taxable turnover of the person carrying on the underlying business, and the separate role of the auctioneer did not alter that liability. Penalty for non-filing of returns under Section 12(3)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was held to follow automatically, and the objection that it could arise only in a best judgment assessment was rejected. The assessing authority had wrongly applied a flat tax rate for all assessment years despite different rates for different periods, so the demand required rectification on a period-wise basis. The assessee was also entitled to object to the quantification of penal interest and to be heard on the relevant period before final orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764601</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>