<?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>2026 (4) TMI 1351 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790282</link>
    <description>Exemption under the Central Sales Tax Act depends on strict proof that the transaction satisfies the statutory conditions for a transit sale or high-seas sale; where the assessee&#039;s own invoices, bills of lading, import documents and hire-purchase records showed that goods were first received and then transferred under local hire-purchase arrangements, the exemption failed and the turnover was taxable as first sales under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Inconsistent invoicing for the same goods and unsupported exemption claims also justified the finding of suppression and an incorrect return, so the penalty was sustained. The court left the concurrent findings on tax liability and penalty undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 09:45:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898031" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1351 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790282</link>
      <description>Exemption under the Central Sales Tax Act depends on strict proof that the transaction satisfies the statutory conditions for a transit sale or high-seas sale; where the assessee&#039;s own invoices, bills of lading, import documents and hire-purchase records showed that goods were first received and then transferred under local hire-purchase arrangements, the exemption failed and the turnover was taxable as first sales under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Inconsistent invoicing for the same goods and unsupported exemption claims also justified the finding of suppression and an incorrect return, so the penalty was sustained. The court left the concurrent findings on tax liability and penalty undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790282</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>