<?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 (8) TMI 1800 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280449</link>
    <description>The court directed the first respondent to lift the attachment on the petitioner&#039;s property as the petitioner had settled the arrears of sales tax under the Samadhan Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Government Sales Tax Act. The court emphasized that the attachment should be lifted since the tax arrears had been settled, and any additional dues should have been separately addressed. The first respondent was instructed to consider the representation, acknowledge the settlement certificate, provide a personal hearing, and lift the attachment within two weeks if no other arrears were outstanding. No costs were awarded in this case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 May 2019 08:43:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=569777" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 1800 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280449</link>
      <description>The court directed the first respondent to lift the attachment on the petitioner&#039;s property as the petitioner had settled the arrears of sales tax under the Samadhan Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Government Sales Tax Act. The court emphasized that the attachment should be lifted since the tax arrears had been settled, and any additional dues should have been separately addressed. The first respondent was instructed to consider the representation, acknowledge the settlement certificate, provide a personal hearing, and lift the attachment within two weeks if no other arrears were outstanding. No costs were awarded in this case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280449</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>