<?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>1999 (10) TMI 660 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104997</link>
    <description>Conditions attached to sales tax deferment for a sick industrial unit were upheld because the State&#039;s commitment under the rehabilitation package extended only to the agreed concessions, and the beneficiary could not demand a different mode or timing of implementation. The Madras HC accepted that requiring repayment from the fourth year and appointing a nominee director to monitor deferred tax funds were protective measures aimed at safeguarding the mills, workmen and public revenue. The court found that these conditions did not conflict with the rehabilitation scheme or unlawfully interfere with management, and the writ petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:14:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142036" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (10) TMI 660 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104997</link>
      <description>Conditions attached to sales tax deferment for a sick industrial unit were upheld because the State&#039;s commitment under the rehabilitation package extended only to the agreed concessions, and the beneficiary could not demand a different mode or timing of implementation. The Madras HC accepted that requiring repayment from the fourth year and appointing a nominee director to monitor deferred tax funds were protective measures aimed at safeguarding the mills, workmen and public revenue. The court found that these conditions did not conflict with the rehabilitation scheme or unlawfully interfere with management, and the writ petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104997</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>