<?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>2000 (3) TMI 1067 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162443</link>
    <description>A sales tax deferment scheme granted fiscal relief only on production and sales beyond the stipulated base level. The eligibility certificate and executed agreement required tax to be paid until the fixed base production and base sales turnover was reached, and deferment applied only to the excess liability thereafter. Because the agreement was never modified, its terms remained binding on the parties, and a notice demanding payment of the shortfall merely enforced those terms. The assessee could not claim deferment on reaching only one of the two stipulated figures, and the challenge to the demand failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:31:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347375" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 1067 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162443</link>
      <description>A sales tax deferment scheme granted fiscal relief only on production and sales beyond the stipulated base level. The eligibility certificate and executed agreement required tax to be paid until the fixed base production and base sales turnover was reached, and deferment applied only to the excess liability thereafter. Because the agreement was never modified, its terms remained binding on the parties, and a notice demanding payment of the shortfall merely enforced those terms. The assessee could not claim deferment on reaching only one of the two stipulated figures, and the challenge to the demand failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162443</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>