<?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>2010 (3) TMI 1005 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164256</link>
    <description>A dealer who validly exercised the statutory compounding option under section 7C of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and was assessed on that basis could not have the assessment reopened under section 16 merely to change the mode of taxation. Section 16 is directed to escaped turnover or turnover assessed at a lower rate in the statutory sense, and it does not permit reopening simply to withdraw the benefit of an accepted compounding assessment. The prior authority relied on was distinguished because it did not concern an assessment already completed under the compounding scheme. The reopening was therefore impermissible and the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353431" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 1005 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164256</link>
      <description>A dealer who validly exercised the statutory compounding option under section 7C of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and was assessed on that basis could not have the assessment reopened under section 16 merely to change the mode of taxation. Section 16 is directed to escaped turnover or turnover assessed at a lower rate in the statutory sense, and it does not permit reopening simply to withdraw the benefit of an accepted compounding assessment. The prior authority relied on was distinguished because it did not concern an assessment already completed under the compounding scheme. The reopening was therefore impermissible and the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164256</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>