<?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>2005 (9) TMI 601 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162346</link>
    <description>Renewal of a sales tax registration certificate had to be sought during March, with a limited extension up to 30 April on payment of penalty; failing renewal within that period deemed the certificate cancelled. On the admitted facts, the renewal request was made only in July 2005, well after the statutory deadline, so refusal to accept the belated renewal fee and rejection of renewal were upheld. Earlier relief-based decisions were distinguished on special facts where the certificate form was misleading, and a prior ruling was not followed because it did not consider the amended rules; an order made without reference to the governing provisions could be treated as per incuriam.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:49:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347116" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 601 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162346</link>
      <description>Renewal of a sales tax registration certificate had to be sought during March, with a limited extension up to 30 April on payment of penalty; failing renewal within that period deemed the certificate cancelled. On the admitted facts, the renewal request was made only in July 2005, well after the statutory deadline, so refusal to accept the belated renewal fee and rejection of renewal were upheld. Earlier relief-based decisions were distinguished on special facts where the certificate form was misleading, and a prior ruling was not followed because it did not consider the amended rules; an order made without reference to the governing provisions could be treated as per incuriam.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162346</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>