<?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 (12) TMI 213 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240548</link>
    <description>The refund voucher claim was outside the bar in the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2008 because the refund had already been ordered before the settlement application and before the scheme was introduced. The dealer&#039;s application under the scheme related only to settlement of interest, so Sections 9 and 10 operated only in relation to the certificate issued under Section 8 and matters covered by that settlement. The statutory bar against reopening or treating claims as withdrawn could not be extended to an earlier refund claim not included in the settlement request. The direction to issue the refund voucher was therefore legally valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 213 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240548</link>
      <description>The refund voucher claim was outside the bar in the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2008 because the refund had already been ordered before the settlement application and before the scheme was introduced. The dealer&#039;s application under the scheme related only to settlement of interest, so Sections 9 and 10 operated only in relation to the certificate issued under Section 8 and matters covered by that settlement. The statutory bar against reopening or treating claims as withdrawn could not be extended to an earlier refund claim not included in the settlement request. The direction to issue the refund voucher was therefore legally valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240548</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>