<?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 (11) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369661</link>
    <description>Interest under Section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was held to be only postponed during pendency of the appeal or revision and not extinguished, because the second proviso defers liability until final disposal and recalculation after the final order. The Court also held that eligibility for settlement under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2008 depended on an assessment made before 01.04.2002 and the absence of any pending appeal or revision on the date of application; subsequent remand or fresh demand did not defeat the scheme. As beneficial legislation, the settlement scheme required liberal construction, and the rejection orders were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2018 13:51:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=540280" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369661</link>
      <description>Interest under Section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was held to be only postponed during pendency of the appeal or revision and not extinguished, because the second proviso defers liability until final disposal and recalculation after the final order. The Court also held that eligibility for settlement under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2008 depended on an assessment made before 01.04.2002 and the absence of any pending appeal or revision on the date of application; subsequent remand or fresh demand did not defeat the scheme. As beneficial legislation, the settlement scheme required liberal construction, and the rejection orders were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369661</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>