<?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 (9) TMI 304 - MADRAS HIGH COURTiran Distributors Versus</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263636</link>
    <description>Goods detained for a discrepancy between the transport pass and invoice were ordered to be released on conditional payment of the quantified one-time disputed tax. The consignment was otherwise supported by transport documents, and the petitioner relied on the statutory entitlement to move goods with documents under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Because the petitioner was willing to pay and the revenue accepted that course, the Court directed the respondent to quantify the tax immediately and release the goods once proof of payment was produced. The petitioner was left free to challenge the detention proceedings in revision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2015 07:57:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396030" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 304 - MADRAS HIGH COURTiran Distributors Versus</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263636</link>
      <description>Goods detained for a discrepancy between the transport pass and invoice were ordered to be released on conditional payment of the quantified one-time disputed tax. The consignment was otherwise supported by transport documents, and the petitioner relied on the statutory entitlement to move goods with documents under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Because the petitioner was willing to pay and the revenue accepted that course, the Court directed the respondent to quantify the tax immediately and release the goods once proof of payment was produced. The petitioner was left free to challenge the detention proceedings in revision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263636</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>