<?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 (4) TMI 891 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161016</link>
    <description>Under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax framework, the appellate authority&#039;s express power to stay refund pending appeal continues until the refund is actually effected. Although a refund voucher had been issued following appellate relief, the refund had not been completed because the voucher was not encashed and a stop-payment order had been issued. The statutory scheme under rule 32(2), section 24(4) and section 39-A(2) therefore allowed stay of the refund during the revenue&#039;s appeal, and the separate wider power under section 36(5) did not displace that distinct jurisdiction. The challenge to the stay order failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Dec 2013 13:42:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341193" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 891 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161016</link>
      <description>Under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax framework, the appellate authority&#039;s express power to stay refund pending appeal continues until the refund is actually effected. Although a refund voucher had been issued following appellate relief, the refund had not been completed because the voucher was not encashed and a stop-payment order had been issued. The statutory scheme under rule 32(2), section 24(4) and section 39-A(2) therefore allowed stay of the refund during the revenue&#039;s appeal, and the separate wider power under section 36(5) did not displace that distinct jurisdiction. The challenge to the stay order failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161016</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>