<?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>1988 (8) TMI 404 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155883</link>
    <description>The assessing authority was required to rectify the assessment under section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 where a statutory exemption under section 17(1) was granted after the turnover had been assessed, because the claim concerned the same ambulance van transaction and was raised within the five-year rectification period. Once the tax collected had been refunded, the assessment disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record. In that situation, rectification by the assessing authority itself was the proper course, and the assessee could not be compelled to seek revision under section 32. The refusal to rectify and the direction to pursue revision were illegal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 18:09:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (8) TMI 404 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155883</link>
      <description>The assessing authority was required to rectify the assessment under section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 where a statutory exemption under section 17(1) was granted after the turnover had been assessed, because the claim concerned the same ambulance van transaction and was raised within the five-year rectification period. Once the tax collected had been refunded, the assessment disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record. In that situation, rectification by the assessing authority itself was the proper course, and the assessee could not be compelled to seek revision under section 32. The refusal to rectify and the direction to pursue revision were illegal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155883</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>