<?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 (5) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127695</link>
    <description>An amendment enlarging the limitation period for escaped assessment applies to pending matters where the earlier period had not already expired, because limitation is procedural and no vested right accrues to the shorter period. The reassessment was therefore within time. On the opportunity-to-show-cause issue, the Court held that no real and effective denial occurred because the disputed turnover was admitted in substance, the records supporting the exemption claim were available, and the assessee had more than one chance to respond but did not substantiate entitlement to exemption. The reassessment was sustained on both grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 May 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:37:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164570" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (5) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127695</link>
      <description>An amendment enlarging the limitation period for escaped assessment applies to pending matters where the earlier period had not already expired, because limitation is procedural and no vested right accrues to the shorter period. The reassessment was therefore within time. On the opportunity-to-show-cause issue, the Court held that no real and effective denial occurred because the disputed turnover was admitted in substance, the records supporting the exemption claim were available, and the assessee had more than one chance to respond but did not substantiate entitlement to exemption. The reassessment was sustained on both grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 May 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>