<?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>1974 (8) TMI 96 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150951</link>
    <description>A later judicial interpretation operates retrospectively, so an assessment may be rectified only where the record shows a clear inconsistency with the law as declared. Rectification is not available, however, when the alleged mistake depends on facts the assessee had to place before the assessing authority but failed to establish at the original assessment stage. On these facts, the error lay in the assessee&#039;s omission to prove entitlement to the concessional rate under the relevant tariff entry, not in the scope of the statutory provision itself. Rectification under the provision was therefore unavailable, and the challenge to refusal of rectification failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 10:41:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167990" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (8) TMI 96 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150951</link>
      <description>A later judicial interpretation operates retrospectively, so an assessment may be rectified only where the record shows a clear inconsistency with the law as declared. Rectification is not available, however, when the alleged mistake depends on facts the assessee had to place before the assessing authority but failed to establish at the original assessment stage. On these facts, the error lay in the assessee&#039;s omission to prove entitlement to the concessional rate under the relevant tariff entry, not in the scope of the statutory provision itself. Rectification under the provision was therefore unavailable, and the challenge to refusal of rectification failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150951</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>