<?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>1999 (6) TMI 462 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159672</link>
    <description>Sales tax deferral benefits under the governing scheme depended on a valid eligibility certificate, and an agreement executed without that foundational certificate was beyond authority and ineffective against the Revenue. The transferee&#039;s reliance on a no objection certificate did not satisfy the scheme, as the department had insisted on the prescribed certificate. The undertaking&#039;s transfer also breached the original conditions prohibiting alienation of fixed assets without prior written permission, and later intimation could not cure that violation. On that basis, the claim to continue the deferral benefit through the transferee failed, and recovery proceedings were treated as valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:10:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337592" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (6) TMI 462 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159672</link>
      <description>Sales tax deferral benefits under the governing scheme depended on a valid eligibility certificate, and an agreement executed without that foundational certificate was beyond authority and ineffective against the Revenue. The transferee&#039;s reliance on a no objection certificate did not satisfy the scheme, as the department had insisted on the prescribed certificate. The undertaking&#039;s transfer also breached the original conditions prohibiting alienation of fixed assets without prior written permission, and later intimation could not cure that violation. On that basis, the claim to continue the deferral benefit through the transferee failed, and recovery proceedings were treated as valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159672</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>