<?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 (9) TMI 526 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163097</link>
    <description>Notices requiring assessees to file A1 returns on the footing that dyeing transactions were works contracts were not quashed at the threshold; the assessees were directed to file objections and the assessing officers to proceed after considering them and recording reasons. Assessment orders made without considering objections and without reasoned findings were set aside and remitted for fresh consideration. A writ of mandamus for exemption from tax on consumables used in dyeing, bleaching and printing contracts was refused because exemption must be granted only under the statutory scheme by the competent authority. In the connected matter, the impugned order was set aside with liberty to proceed under the prescribed procedure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2014 18:01:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349432" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 526 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163097</link>
      <description>Notices requiring assessees to file A1 returns on the footing that dyeing transactions were works contracts were not quashed at the threshold; the assessees were directed to file objections and the assessing officers to proceed after considering them and recording reasons. Assessment orders made without considering objections and without reasoned findings were set aside and remitted for fresh consideration. A writ of mandamus for exemption from tax on consumables used in dyeing, bleaching and printing contracts was refused because exemption must be granted only under the statutory scheme by the competent authority. In the connected matter, the impugned order was set aside with liberty to proceed under the prescribed procedure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163097</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>