<?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 (12) TMI 1069 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783529</link>
    <description>Exemption notifications in sales tax law must be confined to their clear terms: inter se sales exemption for aluminium sole moulds and cutting dyes failed because the 1994 notification was limited to units within the Madras Export Processing Zone, and the 1997 notification covered only raw materials, packing materials and consumables actually used in manufacture. Items serving merely as aids or implements did not qualify as consumables. Penalty under Section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act could not be sustained where all material facts were disclosed and the dispute turned only on interpretation of the notifications, so there was no wilful non-disclosure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:01:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=872396" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1069 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783529</link>
      <description>Exemption notifications in sales tax law must be confined to their clear terms: inter se sales exemption for aluminium sole moulds and cutting dyes failed because the 1994 notification was limited to units within the Madras Export Processing Zone, and the 1997 notification covered only raw materials, packing materials and consumables actually used in manufacture. Items serving merely as aids or implements did not qualify as consumables. Penalty under Section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act could not be sustained where all material facts were disclosed and the dispute turned only on interpretation of the notifications, so there was no wilful non-disclosure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783529</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>