<?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>2006 (2) TMI 613 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162798</link>
    <description>The court quashed recovery proceedings against a sick industrial company for tax arrears initiated without consent from the Board, as required by the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The court held that coercive recovery without Board consent is impermissible, citing precedent. Despite arguing they could seek permission from the Appellate Authority, the respondent&#039;s actions were deemed unauthorized without Board consent. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of obtaining consent for recovery from sick industrial companies and allowed the writ petition, offering the respondent the option to seek consent for future actions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:43:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348673" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 613 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162798</link>
      <description>The court quashed recovery proceedings against a sick industrial company for tax arrears initiated without consent from the Board, as required by the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The court held that coercive recovery without Board consent is impermissible, citing precedent. Despite arguing they could seek permission from the Appellate Authority, the respondent&#039;s actions were deemed unauthorized without Board consent. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of obtaining consent for recovery from sick industrial companies and allowed the writ petition, offering the respondent the option to seek consent for future actions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162798</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>