<?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>2014 (5) TMI 646 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247719</link>
    <description>A statutory appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act requires proof of payment of the admitted tax and the prescribed portion of the assessed difference before it can be entertained, and the court treated the pre-deposit requirement as mandatory. The attempt to invoke input tax credit adjustment to bypass that condition was rejected because the credit had already been adjusted in assessment. The court also upheld the departmental computation of the available input tax credit, accepting that only the net eligible credit for the relevant period remained and disallowing any further claim. The writ appeal therefore disclosed no ground for interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=356024" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 646 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247719</link>
      <description>A statutory appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act requires proof of payment of the admitted tax and the prescribed portion of the assessed difference before it can be entertained, and the court treated the pre-deposit requirement as mandatory. The attempt to invoke input tax credit adjustment to bypass that condition was rejected because the credit had already been adjusted in assessment. The court also upheld the departmental computation of the available input tax credit, accepting that only the net eligible credit for the relevant period remained and disallowing any further claim. The writ appeal therefore disclosed no ground for interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247719</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>