<?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 (2) TMI 456 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155891</link>
    <description>Section 21(2-C) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 requires that a dealer be given an opportunity of being heard before an order is made directing additional security under section 21(2-B). Because no such hearing was given, the statutory safeguard was violated and the demand for additional security could not be sustained. The consequential cancellation proceedings, being founded on that invalid demand, were also quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 18:46:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172918" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (2) TMI 456 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155891</link>
      <description>Section 21(2-C) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 requires that a dealer be given an opportunity of being heard before an order is made directing additional security under section 21(2-B). Because no such hearing was given, the statutory safeguard was violated and the demand for additional security could not be sustained. The consequential cancellation proceedings, being founded on that invalid demand, were also quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155891</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>