<?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>1998 (2) TMI 580 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161202</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the Tax Case (Revision), restoring the assessment order of the suppressed turnover of Rs. 2,53,414 exigible to tax at ten percent for the assessment year 1989-90, as confirmed by the AAC. Additionally, the penalty of Rs. 12,671, as sustained by the AAC, was also reinstated. The Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside due to its perverse appreciation of the material facts and failure to provide a reasonable explanation for its decision. The High Court emphasized the necessity for the Tribunal to demonstrate how the lower authorities erred in their conclusions, ensuring that justice is not compromised. The petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:27:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342175" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 580 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161202</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the Tax Case (Revision), restoring the assessment order of the suppressed turnover of Rs. 2,53,414 exigible to tax at ten percent for the assessment year 1989-90, as confirmed by the AAC. Additionally, the penalty of Rs. 12,671, as sustained by the AAC, was also reinstated. The Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside due to its perverse appreciation of the material facts and failure to provide a reasonable explanation for its decision. The High Court emphasized the necessity for the Tribunal to demonstrate how the lower authorities erred in their conclusions, ensuring that justice is not compromised. The petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161202</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>