<?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>2016 (8) TMI 1485 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286047</link>
    <description>Under Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, a dealer entitled to zero-rated treatment and refund of input tax cannot have that entitlement curtailed by an adjustment or reversal inconsistent with the statutory scheme. The Court followed its earlier interpretation of Section 18 and held that reversal of input tax credit on capital goods beyond the permitted adjustment was impermissible. The assessment order was therefore quashed to that extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2020 12:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=603388" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 1485 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286047</link>
      <description>Under Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, a dealer entitled to zero-rated treatment and refund of input tax cannot have that entitlement curtailed by an adjustment or reversal inconsistent with the statutory scheme. The Court followed its earlier interpretation of Section 18 and held that reversal of input tax credit on capital goods beyond the permitted adjustment was impermissible. The assessment order was therefore quashed to that extent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286047</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>