<?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>2018 (1) TMI 1220 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354484</link>
    <description>Service tax recovery attachment of immovable property purchased before the departmental action was held unsustainable where the property was already subject to a secured creditor&#039;s security interest. The governing legal position gives a secured creditor priority to realise secured debts from secured assets ahead of government dues, and the departmental circular also protected personal property used as a residence by the proprietor or family. On the recorded facts, the property had been sold before attachment and was used as a residence, so the recovery action could not be maintained. The attachment was quashed, while the department was left free to proceed against the defaulter or other commercial assets.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2018 17:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506570" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 1220 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354484</link>
      <description>Service tax recovery attachment of immovable property purchased before the departmental action was held unsustainable where the property was already subject to a secured creditor&#039;s security interest. The governing legal position gives a secured creditor priority to realise secured debts from secured assets ahead of government dues, and the departmental circular also protected personal property used as a residence by the proprietor or family. On the recorded facts, the property had been sold before attachment and was used as a residence, so the recovery action could not be maintained. The attachment was quashed, while the department was left free to proceed against the defaulter or other commercial assets.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354484</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>