<?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>2015 (6) TMI 192 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260267</link>
    <description>Detained goods in transit were held releasable on payment of tax or adequate security under section 67(3)(b)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and the compounding fee could not be insisted upon as a pre-condition for release. The Court treated compounding under section 72 as a separate statutory process and permitted those proceedings to continue independently in accordance with law. It also noted the availability of the statutory revision remedy under section 54.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2015 05:57:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=386954" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 192 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260267</link>
      <description>Detained goods in transit were held releasable on payment of tax or adequate security under section 67(3)(b)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and the compounding fee could not be insisted upon as a pre-condition for release. The Court treated compounding under section 72 as a separate statutory process and permitted those proceedings to continue independently in accordance with law. It also noted the availability of the statutory revision remedy under section 54.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>