<?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 (7) TMI 579 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249542</link>
    <description>A writ petition challenging levy of interest and penalty under the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970 was maintainable because the availability of statutory appeal or revision did not bar Article 226 review where the levy was alleged to lack authority of law. On the merits, interest and penalty for the relevant assessment year could not be sustained because the Act then contained no substantive charging provision authorising such levies. Machinery provisions imported from the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 could not create a liability absent in the special statute, and a validating amendment could not cure that defect for the relevant period. The demand was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=359961" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 579 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249542</link>
      <description>A writ petition challenging levy of interest and penalty under the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970 was maintainable because the availability of statutory appeal or revision did not bar Article 226 review where the levy was alleged to lack authority of law. On the merits, interest and penalty for the relevant assessment year could not be sustained because the Act then contained no substantive charging provision authorising such levies. Machinery provisions imported from the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 could not create a liability absent in the special statute, and a validating amendment could not cure that defect for the relevant period. The demand was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249542</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>