<?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>1998 (4) TMI 514 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159657</link>
    <description>A tax deferral scheme conditioned transfer of an industrial unit on prior permission and compliance with restrictions on changes in ownership and disposal of fixed assets. Where the eligibility certificate was cancelled and that cancellation was allowed to attain finality, the transferor could not insist on approval of the transfer along with the deferred sales tax liability. The outstanding deferred tax became recoverable as arrears from the transferor, and the demand notice was valid. Section 27 was treated as an additional recovery remedy against a transferee; it did not require the department to proceed first or only against the purchaser, nor did it extinguish the transferor&#039;s liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:10:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337490" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 514 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159657</link>
      <description>A tax deferral scheme conditioned transfer of an industrial unit on prior permission and compliance with restrictions on changes in ownership and disposal of fixed assets. Where the eligibility certificate was cancelled and that cancellation was allowed to attain finality, the transferor could not insist on approval of the transfer along with the deferred sales tax liability. The outstanding deferred tax became recoverable as arrears from the transferor, and the demand notice was valid. Section 27 was treated as an additional recovery remedy against a transferee; it did not require the department to proceed first or only against the purchaser, nor did it extinguish the transferor&#039;s liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159657</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>