<?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>2007 (8) TMI 679 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163254</link>
    <description>The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the second respondent to provide necessary documents to the petitioner for assessment. The court emphasized that the burden of proof cannot be shifted to establish the negative and directed the respondent to furnish relevant documents within two weeks for the petitioner to challenge before fresh assessment orders are passed. No costs were imposed in the disposal of the petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:51:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349965" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 679 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163254</link>
      <description>The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the second respondent to provide necessary documents to the petitioner for assessment. The court emphasized that the burden of proof cannot be shifted to establish the negative and directed the respondent to furnish relevant documents within two weeks for the petitioner to challenge before fresh assessment orders are passed. No costs were imposed in the disposal of the petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163254</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>