<?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>2009 (11) TMI 886 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172284</link>
    <description>A fresh assessment order passed after appellate remand substitutes the original assessment order and is treated as the operative order for legal purposes. On that basis, the court recognised that arrears relating to assessment years before 1.4.2002 could still fall within the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2008, even though the consequential demand arose only after remand. The later date of the fresh assessment could not, by itself, deny settlement benefits otherwise available to similarly placed assessees. The assessee was therefore held entitled to the settlement scheme, and the writ challenge to the clarification succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jun 2017 11:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393637" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 886 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172284</link>
      <description>A fresh assessment order passed after appellate remand substitutes the original assessment order and is treated as the operative order for legal purposes. On that basis, the court recognised that arrears relating to assessment years before 1.4.2002 could still fall within the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2008, even though the consequential demand arose only after remand. The later date of the fresh assessment could not, by itself, deny settlement benefits otherwise available to similarly placed assessees. The assessee was therefore held entitled to the settlement scheme, and the writ challenge to the clarification succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172284</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>