<?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 (5) TMI 1545 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200298</link>
    <description>Mere registration of an assessee before the BIFR did not by itself suspend statutory interest liability arising under the Chhattisgarh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994. Protection under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 applies only to liabilities shown to fall within the statutory stay or an approved rehabilitation scheme. Because the interest demand related to a period before BIFR registration, was not shown to be covered by any sanctioned scheme, and no express waiver was established, the statutory interest could not be treated as waived. The challenge to the demand therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2018 18:52:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514620" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 1545 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200298</link>
      <description>Mere registration of an assessee before the BIFR did not by itself suspend statutory interest liability arising under the Chhattisgarh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994. Protection under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 applies only to liabilities shown to fall within the statutory stay or an approved rehabilitation scheme. Because the interest demand related to a period before BIFR registration, was not shown to be covered by any sanctioned scheme, and no express waiver was established, the statutory interest could not be treated as waived. The challenge to the demand therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>