<?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>2021 (5) TMI 372 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407493</link>
    <description>A revenue demand under a settlement scheme cannot be enforced without a valid assessment basis, and the designated authority must compute the amount payable before rejecting an application for short payment. Here, assessment orders existed only for two years, while the applicant had already remitted an amount exceeding the quantified demand. The monetary requirement under the scheme was therefore satisfied, and excess remittance could not justify rejection. The rejection of the settlement applications was held unsustainable, the property attachment was directed to be lifted, and the excess amount was ordered to be refunded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 May 2021 08:30:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=644046" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (5) TMI 372 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407493</link>
      <description>A revenue demand under a settlement scheme cannot be enforced without a valid assessment basis, and the designated authority must compute the amount payable before rejecting an application for short payment. Here, assessment orders existed only for two years, while the applicant had already remitted an amount exceeding the quantified demand. The monetary requirement under the scheme was therefore satisfied, and excess remittance could not justify rejection. The rejection of the settlement applications was held unsustainable, the property attachment was directed to be lifted, and the excess amount was ordered to be refunded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407493</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>