<?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>1976 (2) TMI 176 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151475</link>
    <description>Retrospective amendment and validating provisions under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act were held capable of curing the defect in earlier reassessment of escaped turnover, because the substituted section 16 was given effect from 1 April 1959 and prior assessments were expressly validated despite the earlier absence of best judgment authority. The reassessment was therefore not invalid merely because it had been quashed under the unamended law. On the facts, the estimated escaped turnover was further reduced after the Tribunal&#039;s partial reduction, but the penalty was sustained because it was based on actual suppression and not on the estimate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2013 14:34:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168513" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (2) TMI 176 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151475</link>
      <description>Retrospective amendment and validating provisions under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act were held capable of curing the defect in earlier reassessment of escaped turnover, because the substituted section 16 was given effect from 1 April 1959 and prior assessments were expressly validated despite the earlier absence of best judgment authority. The reassessment was therefore not invalid merely because it had been quashed under the unamended law. On the facts, the estimated escaped turnover was further reduced after the Tribunal&#039;s partial reduction, but the penalty was sustained because it was based on actual suppression and not on the estimate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151475</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>