<?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 (11) TMI 652 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164807</link>
    <description>A claim for refund of tax on alleged sales return was rejected because the assessee failed to prove actual return of the machinery and refund of the sale price and tax. The statutory refund procedure under section 4C of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act required a timely application to the assessing officer in the prescribed form, and no such compliant claim was shown. The factual findings that the sales were effected and later suppressed in the returns were supported by materials and were not shown to be perverse. The assessment findings were therefore left undisturbed, and no interference was called for on the penalty-related issues on the record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2014 20:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354760" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 652 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164807</link>
      <description>A claim for refund of tax on alleged sales return was rejected because the assessee failed to prove actual return of the machinery and refund of the sale price and tax. The statutory refund procedure under section 4C of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act required a timely application to the assessing officer in the prescribed form, and no such compliant claim was shown. The factual findings that the sales were effected and later suppressed in the returns were supported by materials and were not shown to be perverse. The assessment findings were therefore left undisturbed, and no interference was called for on the penalty-related issues on the record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>