<?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>2016 (1) TMI 470 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270678</link>
    <description>Detained goods were directed to be released once the tax payable was quantified and paid, as the tax had not yet been assessed. For the limited purpose of securing release, the respondent was required to quantify the tax and intimate the amount within one week, and the goods were to be released forthwith on payment. The question of compounding fee was expressly left open for adjudication in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:02:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412908" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 470 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270678</link>
      <description>Detained goods were directed to be released once the tax payable was quantified and paid, as the tax had not yet been assessed. For the limited purpose of securing release, the respondent was required to quantify the tax and intimate the amount within one week, and the goods were to be released forthwith on payment. The question of compounding fee was expressly left open for adjudication in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270678</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>