<?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 71 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148311</link>
    <description>A composition demand under a taxing statute must match the specific provision governing the factual situation. Where no assessment had been completed and no tax had been finally determined as recoverable, the provision applicable only to completed assessments could not be used to fix composition in lieu of prosecution. The residual composition provision alone applied, and it imposed a lower statutory ceiling. A notice demanding a composition fee far above that maximum was therefore illegal and without jurisdiction to that extent, and further action under it was restrained, while the question of prosecution was left open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:35:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166351" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (1) TMI 71 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148311</link>
      <description>A composition demand under a taxing statute must match the specific provision governing the factual situation. Where no assessment had been completed and no tax had been finally determined as recoverable, the provision applicable only to completed assessments could not be used to fix composition in lieu of prosecution. The residual composition provision alone applied, and it imposed a lower statutory ceiling. A notice demanding a composition fee far above that maximum was therefore illegal and without jurisdiction to that extent, and further action under it was restrained, while the question of prosecution was left open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148311</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>