<?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>1971 (8) TMI 208 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150179</link>
    <description>Section 46 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was construed as conferring independent discretion on the prescribed authority to compound an offence in lieu of prosecution when an offence is committed or reasonably suspected. Rule 53 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 was treated as providing only general administrative control and guidance, not a case-specific prior direction from the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes or the Board of Revenue as a condition precedent. The court held that reading such a requirement into the rule would improperly curtail the statutory power, and the revisional hierarchy under the Act provided sufficient supervision over misuse. The levy of compounding fee was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 17:40:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167220" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (8) TMI 208 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150179</link>
      <description>Section 46 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was construed as conferring independent discretion on the prescribed authority to compound an offence in lieu of prosecution when an offence is committed or reasonably suspected. Rule 53 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 was treated as providing only general administrative control and guidance, not a case-specific prior direction from the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes or the Board of Revenue as a condition precedent. The court held that reading such a requirement into the rule would improperly curtail the statutory power, and the revisional hierarchy under the Act provided sufficient supervision over misuse. The levy of compounding fee was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150179</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>