<?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>2007 (3) TMI 676 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162538</link>
    <description>Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 requires payment of the admitted tax and the stipulated pre-deposit of disputed tax as a condition precedent to entertaining an appeal, and the appellate authority cannot waive that mandate in the absence of express statutory power. The fact that the appellant was a sick industrial company did not override the statutory requirement, because section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was inapplicable to a taxpayer&#039;s own appeal rather than coercive recovery action against assets. Writ jurisdiction could not be used to direct admission of the appeal despite non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Mar 2014 14:44:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 676 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162538</link>
      <description>Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 requires payment of the admitted tax and the stipulated pre-deposit of disputed tax as a condition precedent to entertaining an appeal, and the appellate authority cannot waive that mandate in the absence of express statutory power. The fact that the appellant was a sick industrial company did not override the statutory requirement, because section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was inapplicable to a taxpayer&#039;s own appeal rather than coercive recovery action against assets. Writ jurisdiction could not be used to direct admission of the appeal despite non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162538</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>