<?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>1975 (3) TMI 125 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151048</link>
    <description>An assessee served with notice under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 may request the Board of Revenue to exercise suo motu revisional power even on issues decided against it, but that power is discretionary and must be exercised judicially. Relief is available only where circumstances justify reopening the matter. Where the assessee had not challenged the adverse finding before the Tribunal and offered no supervening circumstance or explanation for that omission, the Board was entitled to decline reopening the factual question. The refusal to interfere with the depot sales finding was therefore justified and not arbitrary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 May 2013 18:20:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168087" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (3) TMI 125 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151048</link>
      <description>An assessee served with notice under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 may request the Board of Revenue to exercise suo motu revisional power even on issues decided against it, but that power is discretionary and must be exercised judicially. Relief is available only where circumstances justify reopening the matter. Where the assessee had not challenged the adverse finding before the Tribunal and offered no supervening circumstance or explanation for that omission, the Board was entitled to decline reopening the factual question. The refusal to interfere with the depot sales finding was therefore justified and not arbitrary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151048</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>