<?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>2003 (9) TMI 556 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109415</link>
    <description>A small-scale industrial undertaking with a permanent registration certificate issued by a State or Union Territory could invoke the delayed-payment mechanism before a Council in another State. The definition of &quot;supplier&quot; in section 2(f) was read to make registration with &quot;a State&quot; sufficient, and that expression was treated as deliberate rather than a filing-territory requirement. The Act was characterised as a protective measure for payment and interest on delayed dues, so State-level rules could not narrow a right the statute itself conferred. The objection to maintainability was rejected, and the application had to be received and processed under the Act and the Rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 18:10:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146432" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 556 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109415</link>
      <description>A small-scale industrial undertaking with a permanent registration certificate issued by a State or Union Territory could invoke the delayed-payment mechanism before a Council in another State. The definition of &quot;supplier&quot; in section 2(f) was read to make registration with &quot;a State&quot; sufficient, and that expression was treated as deliberate rather than a filing-territory requirement. The Act was characterised as a protective measure for payment and interest on delayed dues, so State-level rules could not narrow a right the statute itself conferred. The objection to maintainability was rejected, and the application had to be received and processed under the Act and the Rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109415</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>