<?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>2013 (7) TMI 706 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235548</link>
    <description>Penalty proceedings for alleged unlawful collection of tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act were held to be time-barred because section 22(2), as then in force, required initiation within five years from the end of the year in which the amount was collected. As the collections related to assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87, the limitation period expired in 1991 and 1992, while the penalty orders were passed only on 30.11.1998. The statutory time limit had therefore expired before action was taken, and the authority lacked jurisdiction to commence or sustain the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside and the revisions were allowed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2014 16:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197958" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 706 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235548</link>
      <description>Penalty proceedings for alleged unlawful collection of tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act were held to be time-barred because section 22(2), as then in force, required initiation within five years from the end of the year in which the amount was collected. As the collections related to assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87, the limitation period expired in 1991 and 1992, while the penalty orders were passed only on 30.11.1998. The statutory time limit had therefore expired before action was taken, and the authority lacked jurisdiction to commence or sustain the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside and the revisions were allowed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235548</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>