<?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>1992 (8) TMI 251 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157053</link>
    <description>Where the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act prescribed a limitation period for imposing penalty under section 12(3), the penalty had to be actually levied within that period, not merely initiated by notice. The Madras HC noted that the relevant version of section 12 required penalty to be imposed within five years from the expiry of the assessment year. Because the penalty order was passed after that statutory limit, the levy was time-barred and could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Sep 2013 13:32:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174078" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (8) TMI 251 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157053</link>
      <description>Where the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act prescribed a limitation period for imposing penalty under section 12(3), the penalty had to be actually levied within that period, not merely initiated by notice. The Madras HC noted that the relevant version of section 12 required penalty to be imposed within five years from the expiry of the assessment year. Because the penalty order was passed after that statutory limit, the levy was time-barred and could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157053</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>