<?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>1993 (11) TMI 214 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157572</link>
    <description>Interest under the amended section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 attaches automatically to tax remaining unpaid after the due date, even if the liability is later disclosed in a revised return. The assessee&#039;s corrected turnover was declared only after the prescribed date, so the tax became payable on that date and was paid later. Rule 18(4) did not displace the levy because it applies only where the assessing authority proceeds on best judgment or provisional assessment; a voluntary correction by the assessee after the due date does not attract that exception. The interest demand was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:06:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (11) TMI 214 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157572</link>
      <description>Interest under the amended section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 attaches automatically to tax remaining unpaid after the due date, even if the liability is later disclosed in a revised return. The assessee&#039;s corrected turnover was declared only after the prescribed date, so the tax became payable on that date and was paid later. Rule 18(4) did not displace the levy because it applies only where the assessing authority proceeds on best judgment or provisional assessment; a voluntary correction by the assessee after the due date does not attract that exception. The interest demand was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157572</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>