<?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>2017 (4) TMI 1195 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342225</link>
    <description>Where an assessment demand had already been raised and first appeals were dismissed, the original notice of demand continued to operate and no fresh notice was required for recovery. The High Court held that Section 226(3) permitted immediate garnishee recovery after appellate confirmation of the assessment, subject to the assessee&#039;s statutory remedies before the Tribunal. Although same-day recovery without breathing time was described as over-enthusiastic, it was not found illegal on the facts. Refund was also denied because no excess payment or appellate refund entitlement had arisen under Sections 237 and 240. The writ petitions therefore failed, with liberty preserved to seek stay and other relief before the Tribunal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Apr 2017 11:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=467092" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 1195 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342225</link>
      <description>Where an assessment demand had already been raised and first appeals were dismissed, the original notice of demand continued to operate and no fresh notice was required for recovery. The High Court held that Section 226(3) permitted immediate garnishee recovery after appellate confirmation of the assessment, subject to the assessee&#039;s statutory remedies before the Tribunal. Although same-day recovery without breathing time was described as over-enthusiastic, it was not found illegal on the facts. Refund was also denied because no excess payment or appellate refund entitlement had arisen under Sections 237 and 240. The writ petitions therefore failed, with liberty preserved to seek stay and other relief before the Tribunal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342225</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>