<?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>1965 (4) TMI 102 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=141068</link>
    <description>The Court granted the mandamus for the refund of the seized amount in the first petition, emphasizing the illegal seizure by Sales Tax Officers. In the second petition, the Court dismissed the plea for prohibition but stressed the dealer&#039;s right to present evidence to challenge the statements made during the raid. The judgment highlighted the significance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring a fair assessment process in tax matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:41:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (4) TMI 102 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=141068</link>
      <description>The Court granted the mandamus for the refund of the seized amount in the first petition, emphasizing the illegal seizure by Sales Tax Officers. In the second petition, the Court dismissed the plea for prohibition but stressed the dealer&#039;s right to present evidence to challenge the statements made during the raid. The judgment highlighted the significance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring a fair assessment process in tax matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=141068</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>