<?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>2008 (7) TMI 411 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48267</link>
    <description>A declarant under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme could not be denied the Form 2B certificate merely because the certificate was said to have been dispatched but was not actually received. The declaration had been filed within time, the postal records were incomplete, and the actual cause of non-delivery was not established. Treating the scheme as a beneficial measure, the HC held that a postal failure beyond the assessee&#039;s control could not defeat the scheme benefit. The respondents were directed to issue the Form 2B certificate, after which the declarant would remain bound by the scheme&#039;s payment requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2014 13:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86777" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 411 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48267</link>
      <description>A declarant under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme could not be denied the Form 2B certificate merely because the certificate was said to have been dispatched but was not actually received. The declaration had been filed within time, the postal records were incomplete, and the actual cause of non-delivery was not established. Treating the scheme as a beneficial measure, the HC held that a postal failure beyond the assessee&#039;s control could not defeat the scheme benefit. The respondents were directed to issue the Form 2B certificate, after which the declarant would remain bound by the scheme&#039;s payment requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>