<?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 (9) TMI 578 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163537</link>
    <description>Revised assessment and penalty were sustained because no violation of natural justice was established: purchase particulars were supplied, a revised show-cause notice gave enhanced details and time to respond, and the assessee did not seek extension or file objections. The court treated the reliance on purchase bills, seller records and the assessee&#039;s own C-form and purchase statements as sufficient, and held that cross-examination principles on third-party material were inapplicable on these facts. Writ relief was also declined because an effective statutory appeal existed, the assessee had failed to comply with the pre-deposit requirement, and no gross injustice or palpable illegality was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2014 13:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351159" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 578 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163537</link>
      <description>Revised assessment and penalty were sustained because no violation of natural justice was established: purchase particulars were supplied, a revised show-cause notice gave enhanced details and time to respond, and the assessee did not seek extension or file objections. The court treated the reliance on purchase bills, seller records and the assessee&#039;s own C-form and purchase statements as sufficient, and held that cross-examination principles on third-party material were inapplicable on these facts. Writ relief was also declined because an effective statutory appeal existed, the assessee had failed to comply with the pre-deposit requirement, and no gross injustice or palpable illegality was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163537</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>