<?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>2024 (12) TMI 268 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762688</link>
    <description>Under the unamended Tamil Nadu VAT scheme, refund of input tax credit linked to zero-rated exports was not defeated merely because Form W was filed beyond 180 days, where monthly returns had already claimed the credit and the relevant entitlement arose within the statutory framework of accrual and assessment. The Court treated the refund mechanism as substantive rather than a purely technical formality and held that the dealer&#039;s entitlement could not be denied on a delayed Form W objection. It also held that the refund had to be worked out through the prescribed assessment process, and that the later amendment to Section 18(3) and Rule 11(2) did not govern the pre-amendment dispute period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Dec 2024 21:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=781189" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 268 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762688</link>
      <description>Under the unamended Tamil Nadu VAT scheme, refund of input tax credit linked to zero-rated exports was not defeated merely because Form W was filed beyond 180 days, where monthly returns had already claimed the credit and the relevant entitlement arose within the statutory framework of accrual and assessment. The Court treated the refund mechanism as substantive rather than a purely technical formality and held that the dealer&#039;s entitlement could not be denied on a delayed Form W objection. It also held that the refund had to be worked out through the prescribed assessment process, and that the later amendment to Section 18(3) and Rule 11(2) did not govern the pre-amendment dispute period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762688</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>