<?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>1996 (1) TMI 385 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158247</link>
    <description>Recovery of sales tax arrears from a sick industrial company could not proceed through garnishee or similar distress proceedings without the prior consent of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The company had already been declared sick and a rehabilitation scheme was in place, so the statutory bar continued to apply despite the earlier conditional stay having lapsed for non-compliance. Because the recovery notices were not shown to have been preceded by the required consent, the garnishee proceedings were invalid and were set aside. Fresh recovery action was left open, subject to compliance with the statutory requirement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:16:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=330261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (1) TMI 385 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158247</link>
      <description>Recovery of sales tax arrears from a sick industrial company could not proceed through garnishee or similar distress proceedings without the prior consent of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The company had already been declared sick and a rehabilitation scheme was in place, so the statutory bar continued to apply despite the earlier conditional stay having lapsed for non-compliance. Because the recovery notices were not shown to have been preceded by the required consent, the garnishee proceedings were invalid and were set aside. Fresh recovery action was left open, subject to compliance with the statutory requirement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158247</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>