<?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>1960 (11) TMI 109 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128295</link>
    <description>A retrospective validating enactment can render an earlier assessment inconsistent with the law as amended, so an order that was valid when made may become revisable as improper or illegal. Where the disputed turnover was disclosed and considered in the original assessment but was wrongly exempted under the earlier law, the matter is not escaped turnover; it falls within revisional jurisdiction rather than the separate escaped-assessment machinery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:38:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165166" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (11) TMI 109 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128295</link>
      <description>A retrospective validating enactment can render an earlier assessment inconsistent with the law as amended, so an order that was valid when made may become revisable as improper or illegal. Where the disputed turnover was disclosed and considered in the original assessment but was wrongly exempted under the earlier law, the matter is not escaped turnover; it falls within revisional jurisdiction rather than the separate escaped-assessment machinery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128295</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>