<?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>2013 (11) TMI 354 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239177</link>
    <description>Where an assessee had validly opted for annual returns under the applicable rule, delay had to be assessed only by reference to the annual return, and not on a monthly-return basis. A revision that proceeded on the incorrect assumption that the assessee was bound to file monthly returns could not support a fresh or enhanced penalty under Section 12(3)(c). The revised penalty was therefore invalid and set aside, while the original penalty already levied for delay in filing the annual return remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2013 12:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334791" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 354 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239177</link>
      <description>Where an assessee had validly opted for annual returns under the applicable rule, delay had to be assessed only by reference to the annual return, and not on a monthly-return basis. A revision that proceeded on the incorrect assumption that the assessee was bound to file monthly returns could not support a fresh or enhanced penalty under Section 12(3)(c). The revised penalty was therefore invalid and set aside, while the original penalty already levied for delay in filing the annual return remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239177</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>