<?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>2008 (3) TMI 641 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163187</link>
    <description>A statutory tax audit can validly be confined to chartered accountants and cost accountants where the function is specialised, the classification has a rational nexus with preventing evasion and ensuring compliance, and other professionals retain their separate right of appearance before tax authorities. The audit requirement under the Maharashtra VAT law was held ancillary to the State&#039;s taxing power, not an impermissible delegation of assessment, because statutory authorities retained control over returns and scrutiny. The related constitutional challenges under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 301 therefore failed, and the audit provision was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349744" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 641 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163187</link>
      <description>A statutory tax audit can validly be confined to chartered accountants and cost accountants where the function is specialised, the classification has a rational nexus with preventing evasion and ensuring compliance, and other professionals retain their separate right of appearance before tax authorities. The audit requirement under the Maharashtra VAT law was held ancillary to the State&#039;s taxing power, not an impermissible delegation of assessment, because statutory authorities retained control over returns and scrutiny. The related constitutional challenges under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 301 therefore failed, and the audit provision was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163187</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>