<?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>2019 (2) TMI 1782 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285925</link>
    <description>Under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, a legal representative of a deceased dealer is deemed to be the dealer and is liable for the deceased dealer&#039;s tax liability to the extent of the assets in hand. Because the assessment and tax arrears had already been determined and paid, the subsequent demand for penal interest arose only as a consequence of delayed payment, so no fresh notice of demand was required. The Act also expressly barred civil suits or injunctions challenging assessments or actions taken under it, and the existence of an alternative statutory remedy excluded civil court jurisdiction. The demand was upheld and the civil suit was held not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2020 15:43:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=602523" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 1782 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285925</link>
      <description>Under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, a legal representative of a deceased dealer is deemed to be the dealer and is liable for the deceased dealer&#039;s tax liability to the extent of the assets in hand. Because the assessment and tax arrears had already been determined and paid, the subsequent demand for penal interest arose only as a consequence of delayed payment, so no fresh notice of demand was required. The Act also expressly barred civil suits or injunctions challenging assessments or actions taken under it, and the existence of an alternative statutory remedy excluded civil court jurisdiction. The demand was upheld and the civil suit was held not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285925</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>