<?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 (7) TMI 333 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157070</link>
    <description>A statutory abolition scheme can transfer revisional powers from the abolished Board of Revenue to a notified successor authority: the notification under the Tamil Nadu Board of Revenue Abolition Act, 1980 vested section 34 powers in the Joint Commissioner, so jurisdiction to act suo motu was valid. Penalty under section 22(2) is attracted once a dealer is found to have collected tax in contravention of section 22(1); prior acceptance of the return does not prevent levy where the excess collection is later established. The text states that the revised authority&#039;s jurisdiction and the mandatory penalty for unlawful excess tax collection were both upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 20 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2013 11:09:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174095" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (7) TMI 333 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157070</link>
      <description>A statutory abolition scheme can transfer revisional powers from the abolished Board of Revenue to a notified successor authority: the notification under the Tamil Nadu Board of Revenue Abolition Act, 1980 vested section 34 powers in the Joint Commissioner, so jurisdiction to act suo motu was valid. Penalty under section 22(2) is attracted once a dealer is found to have collected tax in contravention of section 22(1); prior acceptance of the return does not prevent levy where the excess collection is later established. The text states that the revised authority&#039;s jurisdiction and the mandatory penalty for unlawful excess tax collection were both upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157070</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>