<?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>2008 (3) TMI 631 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163045</link>
    <description>Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was confined to dues covered by the pending reference, inquiry, or rehabilitation scheme and did not extend to current sales tax collected after the reference. The Court distinguished pre-reference liabilities, which may fall within the rehabilitation framework, from post-reference tax collections, which belong to the State and cannot be retained by the company. A Board-fixed cut-off date for preparing the viability report and scheme affected only the scheme-preparation process and did not enlarge statutory protection. The State could recover the collected tax without Board consent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349380" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 631 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163045</link>
      <description>Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was confined to dues covered by the pending reference, inquiry, or rehabilitation scheme and did not extend to current sales tax collected after the reference. The Court distinguished pre-reference liabilities, which may fall within the rehabilitation framework, from post-reference tax collections, which belong to the State and cannot be retained by the company. A Board-fixed cut-off date for preparing the viability report and scheme affected only the scheme-preparation process and did not enlarge statutory protection. The State could recover the collected tax without Board consent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163045</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>