<?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>1967 (1) TMI 66 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=146240</link>
    <description>A corrected turnover return disclosed to the assessing officer before final assessment under section 12(2) had to be considered, and earlier erroneous provisional monthly returns could not be treated as the sole basis of assessment. The statutory scheme distinguished provisional returns and provisional assessment from final assessment, so the officer could not ignore the later corrected disclosure. Sub-section (3) of section 12 applied only where an assessment had been made under section 12(2), and the legislative history of section 13 reinforced that separation. The Tribunal&#039;s view was upheld and the tax case was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:08:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166257" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (1) TMI 66 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=146240</link>
      <description>A corrected turnover return disclosed to the assessing officer before final assessment under section 12(2) had to be considered, and earlier erroneous provisional monthly returns could not be treated as the sole basis of assessment. The statutory scheme distinguished provisional returns and provisional assessment from final assessment, so the officer could not ignore the later corrected disclosure. Sub-section (3) of section 12 applied only where an assessment had been made under section 12(2), and the legislative history of section 13 reinforced that separation. The Tribunal&#039;s view was upheld and the tax case was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=146240</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>