<?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>2001 (1) TMI 923 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160370</link>
    <description>The Tribunal treated omission of the Deputy Commissioner&#039;s signature and verification in Form VI as a curable defect because the authorised representative had signed and the form was later re-presented with the defect corrected. On limitation, it construed the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, Rules and Tribunal Regulations to hold that service on the State representative constituted sufficient service on the Government, so time ran from that earliest valid service. As that service was already beyond the period within which delay could be condoned, the Tribunal held the delay was not condonable and dismissed the condonation petitions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:00:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 923 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160370</link>
      <description>The Tribunal treated omission of the Deputy Commissioner&#039;s signature and verification in Form VI as a curable defect because the authorised representative had signed and the form was later re-presented with the defect corrected. On limitation, it construed the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, Rules and Tribunal Regulations to hold that service on the State representative constituted sufficient service on the Government, so time ran from that earliest valid service. As that service was already beyond the period within which delay could be condoned, the Tribunal held the delay was not condonable and dismissed the condonation petitions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160370</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>