<?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>1957 (4) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127592</link>
    <description>Sales tax inspection powers were held to permit entry into business premises at reasonable times, and the reasonableness of the visit depended on the facts; because the premises were open and business was being carried on, the inspection was lawful. The authority could require production of account books and retain them for inspection after giving receipt. Statements recorded from the clerk and dealer were valid because the officer could obtain business information in writing, the statements were voluntary, and Sunday recording did not make them inadmissible. The Kommandal premises were treated as a real place of business, so the dealer could not avoid inspection by operating from a concealed location.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:38:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164468" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (4) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127592</link>
      <description>Sales tax inspection powers were held to permit entry into business premises at reasonable times, and the reasonableness of the visit depended on the facts; because the premises were open and business was being carried on, the inspection was lawful. The authority could require production of account books and retain them for inspection after giving receipt. Statements recorded from the clerk and dealer were valid because the officer could obtain business information in writing, the statements were voluntary, and Sunday recording did not make them inadmissible. The Kommandal premises were treated as a real place of business, so the dealer could not avoid inspection by operating from a concealed location.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127592</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>