<?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>2008 (7) TMI 966 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174636</link>
    <description>Interest on delayed employees&#039; state insurance contributions was held to arise automatically under Section 39 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, read with Regulations 31 and 31A, once payment is made after the prescribed time. The liability is statutory and does not depend on a separate demand. Because the statute provided no power of waiver, neither a compromise nor a statement recorded before the Employees&#039; State Insurance Court could extinguish the interest obligation. The reference to no further amount due was confined to contribution and did not cover statutory interest, so the interest demand remained enforceable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2015 09:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=401253" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 966 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174636</link>
      <description>Interest on delayed employees&#039; state insurance contributions was held to arise automatically under Section 39 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, read with Regulations 31 and 31A, once payment is made after the prescribed time. The liability is statutory and does not depend on a separate demand. Because the statute provided no power of waiver, neither a compromise nor a statement recorded before the Employees&#039; State Insurance Court could extinguish the interest obligation. The reference to no further amount due was confined to contribution and did not cover statutory interest, so the interest demand remained enforceable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174636</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>