<?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>2002 (3) TMI 891 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158773</link>
    <description>An industrial unit transferred to a subsidiary without prior permission under a sales-tax deferral agreement was held to be in breach of the restriction on transfer of fixed assets, making recovery of the deferred sales tax and interest enforceable. The fact that a substantial part of the deferred tax had already been paid did not remove the breach, though it was relevant to equities. However, the refusal to examine the request for amendment of the agreement and continuation of the benefit in favour of the subsidiary was found to rest on irrelevant considerations, and the competent Assistant Commissioner was directed to reconsider the representation afresh on proper grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 18:22:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334704" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 891 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158773</link>
      <description>An industrial unit transferred to a subsidiary without prior permission under a sales-tax deferral agreement was held to be in breach of the restriction on transfer of fixed assets, making recovery of the deferred sales tax and interest enforceable. The fact that a substantial part of the deferred tax had already been paid did not remove the breach, though it was relevant to equities. However, the refusal to examine the request for amendment of the agreement and continuation of the benefit in favour of the subsidiary was found to rest on irrelevant considerations, and the competent Assistant Commissioner was directed to reconsider the representation afresh on proper grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158773</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>