<?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>1970 (3) TMI 115 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149791</link>
    <description>A tribunal regulation permitting dismissal of a sales tax appeal for default of appearance was held inconsistent with the statutory appellate scheme requiring disposal of the appeal on its grounds under section 36(3). The court noted that the Act contemplated merits-based adjudication, preserved the assessee&#039;s revisional remedy, and allowed the State to seek enhancement in an assessee&#039;s appeal. Because dismissal for default does not decide the subject-matter of the appeal, it was beyond the regulation-making power. The provision for readmission did not cure the defect, since the inconsistency arose from the initial authority to dismiss for non-appearance. The regulation and consequential dismissal and refusal of restoration were therefore invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 15:30:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166832" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (3) TMI 115 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149791</link>
      <description>A tribunal regulation permitting dismissal of a sales tax appeal for default of appearance was held inconsistent with the statutory appellate scheme requiring disposal of the appeal on its grounds under section 36(3). The court noted that the Act contemplated merits-based adjudication, preserved the assessee&#039;s revisional remedy, and allowed the State to seek enhancement in an assessee&#039;s appeal. Because dismissal for default does not decide the subject-matter of the appeal, it was beyond the regulation-making power. The provision for readmission did not cure the defect, since the inconsistency arose from the initial authority to dismiss for non-appearance. The regulation and consequential dismissal and refusal of restoration were therefore invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149791</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>