<?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>1997 (12) TMI 620 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159882</link>
    <description>The Tribunal&#039;s restoration of revised sales tax assessments was unsustainable because it did not consider the assessees&#039; substantive objections on the validity and publication of the notification affecting the &quot;C&quot; and &quot;F&quot; forms, or on whether the transactions attracted section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It also reversed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner&#039;s orders without explaining why those findings were wrong. The decision states that an appellate authority must deal with all material grounds and give reasons for disagreeing with the order under appeal; failure to do so vitiates the appellate order. Relief was therefore partly granted, with two matters restored and the remaining connected matters remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:41:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 620 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159882</link>
      <description>The Tribunal&#039;s restoration of revised sales tax assessments was unsustainable because it did not consider the assessees&#039; substantive objections on the validity and publication of the notification affecting the &quot;C&quot; and &quot;F&quot; forms, or on whether the transactions attracted section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It also reversed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner&#039;s orders without explaining why those findings were wrong. The decision states that an appellate authority must deal with all material grounds and give reasons for disagreeing with the order under appeal; failure to do so vitiates the appellate order. Relief was therefore partly granted, with two matters restored and the remaining connected matters remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159882</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>