<?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 (12) TMI 615 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415849</link>
    <description>Input tax credit was held inadmissible where purchases were made after the selling dealers&#039; registrations had already been cancelled, because the claim failed on that factual basis under the VAT framework. Writ relief was also declined since an effective statutory appeal remedy was available, leaving the assessee to pursue that prescribed channel for any further relief. The assessment order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2021 09:02:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=664092" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (12) TMI 615 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415849</link>
      <description>Input tax credit was held inadmissible where purchases were made after the selling dealers&#039; registrations had already been cancelled, because the claim failed on that factual basis under the VAT framework. Writ relief was also declined since an effective statutory appeal remedy was available, leaving the assessee to pursue that prescribed channel for any further relief. The assessment order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>