<?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>2006 (4) TMI 483 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162888</link>
    <description>A best judgment assessment based on a flat electricity-consumption norm was held unsustainable because it was not supported by examination of the assessee&#039;s accounts, test checks, comparable data, or any other reliable material. The Court reiterated that such estimations require objective material giving rise to a legitimate doubt about the return&#039;s correctness, and an arbitrary consumption assumption is contrary to settled law. The writ petitions were not rejected on the basis of alternative remedy, because the assessment orders were plainly contrary to binding precedent and grossly erroneous. The assessments and revised assessments were quashed, and fresh orders were permitted to be passed in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:32:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 483 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162888</link>
      <description>A best judgment assessment based on a flat electricity-consumption norm was held unsustainable because it was not supported by examination of the assessee&#039;s accounts, test checks, comparable data, or any other reliable material. The Court reiterated that such estimations require objective material giving rise to a legitimate doubt about the return&#039;s correctness, and an arbitrary consumption assumption is contrary to settled law. The writ petitions were not rejected on the basis of alternative remedy, because the assessment orders were plainly contrary to binding precedent and grossly erroneous. The assessments and revised assessments were quashed, and fresh orders were permitted to be passed in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>