<?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>1991 (10) TMI 280 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156677</link>
    <description>A revisional authority may invoke suo motu revision against an appellate order passed after condonation of delay, but it must consider the assessee&#039;s objections and examine whether the delay was properly condoned; failure to do so renders the revision unsustainable to that extent. A fresh second appeal is not maintainable where the assessment proceedings for an earlier year have already travelled through the appellate hierarchy and attained finality. The appellate relief for the other years was sustained because the delay was condoned on cogent grounds, supported by the Board&#039;s clarification on tax classification, and the consequential direction on verification of excess tax collection and penalty was treated as proper.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:46:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173703" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (10) TMI 280 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156677</link>
      <description>A revisional authority may invoke suo motu revision against an appellate order passed after condonation of delay, but it must consider the assessee&#039;s objections and examine whether the delay was properly condoned; failure to do so renders the revision unsustainable to that extent. A fresh second appeal is not maintainable where the assessment proceedings for an earlier year have already travelled through the appellate hierarchy and attained finality. The appellate relief for the other years was sustained because the delay was condoned on cogent grounds, supported by the Board&#039;s clarification on tax classification, and the consequential direction on verification of excess tax collection and penalty was treated as proper.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156677</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>