<?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>2020 (11) TMI 393 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400638</link>
    <description>A rectification application under the Tamil Nadu VAT Act was treated as maintainable after an earlier writ challenge had relegated the party to statutory remedies, and it was not rejected merely because an appeal was possible. The order was found to have been passed without prior hearing, disclosing breach of natural justice, but the matter was decided on the existing record without remand. On the merits, valid Form S certificates issued under the TDS scheme had to be given effect, so the payer could not be treated as liable for amounts covered by those certificates. The order was held to arise under Section 13, not Section 27, because the payer was a non-dealer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2020 20:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=627584" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (11) TMI 393 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400638</link>
      <description>A rectification application under the Tamil Nadu VAT Act was treated as maintainable after an earlier writ challenge had relegated the party to statutory remedies, and it was not rejected merely because an appeal was possible. The order was found to have been passed without prior hearing, disclosing breach of natural justice, but the matter was decided on the existing record without remand. On the merits, valid Form S certificates issued under the TDS scheme had to be given effect, so the payer could not be treated as liable for amounts covered by those certificates. The order was held to arise under Section 13, not Section 27, because the payer was a non-dealer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400638</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>