<?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 (12) TMI 842 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160879</link>
    <description>A transferee of an industrial unit retained sales tax deferral benefits where the competent Territorial Assistant Commissioner executed a fresh agreement recognising the transfer and the transferee&#039;s continued entitlement. The condition restricting alienation of fixed assets without prior permission was treated as a protective term for the State&#039;s benefit, capable of waiver by the competent authority. Because the Government had accepted the transfer, continued the incentive arrangement, and no revenue prejudice was shown, the State could not later rely on the predecessor&#039;s technical breach to demand repayment or withdraw the benefit. The demand was therefore unsustainable, and the deferral scheme remained available to the transferee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:19:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340828" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 842 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160879</link>
      <description>A transferee of an industrial unit retained sales tax deferral benefits where the competent Territorial Assistant Commissioner executed a fresh agreement recognising the transfer and the transferee&#039;s continued entitlement. The condition restricting alienation of fixed assets without prior permission was treated as a protective term for the State&#039;s benefit, capable of waiver by the competent authority. Because the Government had accepted the transfer, continued the incentive arrangement, and no revenue prejudice was shown, the State could not later rely on the predecessor&#039;s technical breach to demand repayment or withdraw the benefit. The demand was therefore unsustainable, and the deferral scheme remained available to the transferee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160879</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>