<?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>2022 (12) TMI 462 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431345</link>
    <description>The court ruled that the respondent was ineligible to file a declaration under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2010, as they did not qualify as a &quot;dealer&quot; under the relevant tax enactments. The court set aside the order for a refund of Rs.14,41,755/- to the respondent, directing them to pay the differential sum of Rs.41,48,920/- to the Commercial Tax Department within eight weeks. Failure to comply would result in the department initiating revenue recovery proceedings. The writ appeal was allowed, the Single Judge&#039;s order was dismissed, and the respondent was instructed to settle the outstanding amount promptly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2022 06:07:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=698275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (12) TMI 462 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431345</link>
      <description>The court ruled that the respondent was ineligible to file a declaration under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2010, as they did not qualify as a &quot;dealer&quot; under the relevant tax enactments. The court set aside the order for a refund of Rs.14,41,755/- to the respondent, directing them to pay the differential sum of Rs.41,48,920/- to the Commercial Tax Department within eight weeks. Failure to comply would result in the department initiating revenue recovery proceedings. The writ appeal was allowed, the Single Judge&#039;s order was dismissed, and the respondent was instructed to settle the outstanding amount promptly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431345</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>