<?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>2005 (9) TMI 612 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162894</link>
    <description>A valid Form F declaration under section 6-A limits the assessing authority to verifying whether the goods were transferred to the assessee&#039;s branch, agent, or other place of business and whether the declaration is genuine and valid. The authority cannot enlarge the enquiry or reopen the assessment merely because later material emerges or because the earlier view was mistaken; interference is confined to cases of jurisdictional error, fraud, collusion, misrepresentation, concealment, or false particulars. The text notes that the impugned orders departed from this limited framework, while also indicating that the Revenue&#039;s materials could not be ignored entirely because the governing Supreme Court ruling had not then been available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:10:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348899" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 612 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162894</link>
      <description>A valid Form F declaration under section 6-A limits the assessing authority to verifying whether the goods were transferred to the assessee&#039;s branch, agent, or other place of business and whether the declaration is genuine and valid. The authority cannot enlarge the enquiry or reopen the assessment merely because later material emerges or because the earlier view was mistaken; interference is confined to cases of jurisdictional error, fraud, collusion, misrepresentation, concealment, or false particulars. The text notes that the impugned orders departed from this limited framework, while also indicating that the Revenue&#039;s materials could not be ignored entirely because the governing Supreme Court ruling had not then been available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162894</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>