<?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 (12) TMI 1386 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270082</link>
    <description>Under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2011, the settlement clause applicable to arrears depends on the actual nature of the default, not the label of the assessment. Where admitted tax shown in returns remained unpaid and tax was retained under a deferral arrangement, the higher-payment provision was treated as applicable rather than the reduced-payment clause for best judgment arrears. The scheme was also read to require interest from the date of filing of returns, because the dealer had collected and retained tax in breach of the deferral arrangement. The article states that the settlement claim on the contrary basis was not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2015 22:58:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=410937" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1386 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270082</link>
      <description>Under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2011, the settlement clause applicable to arrears depends on the actual nature of the default, not the label of the assessment. Where admitted tax shown in returns remained unpaid and tax was retained under a deferral arrangement, the higher-payment provision was treated as applicable rather than the reduced-payment clause for best judgment arrears. The scheme was also read to require interest from the date of filing of returns, because the dealer had collected and retained tax in breach of the deferral arrangement. The article states that the settlement claim on the contrary basis was not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270082</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>