<?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>1996 (7) TMI 542 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159328</link>
    <description>Where assessment notices are returned unclaimed and the assessee is not given a meaningful chance to produce books of account and supporting records, the assessment should not be finalised without a fresh hearing. The text applies fairness principles to hold that service in those circumstances was not sufficient to deny the assessee an opportunity to substantiate a claimed exemption on merits. The assessment was therefore interfered with to the extent of requiring reconsideration by the assessing authority after affording an effective hearing, with liberty to file documents and relevant details, while enforcement of the notices was kept in abeyance until fresh orders were passed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:28:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336314" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 542 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159328</link>
      <description>Where assessment notices are returned unclaimed and the assessee is not given a meaningful chance to produce books of account and supporting records, the assessment should not be finalised without a fresh hearing. The text applies fairness principles to hold that service in those circumstances was not sufficient to deny the assessee an opportunity to substantiate a claimed exemption on merits. The assessment was therefore interfered with to the extent of requiring reconsideration by the assessing authority after affording an effective hearing, with liberty to file documents and relevant details, while enforcement of the notices was kept in abeyance until fresh orders were passed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159328</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>