<?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>2009 (7) TMI 1194 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165044</link>
    <description>Assessment and penalty under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act were held unsustainable because the assessee was denied an effective opportunity to cross-examine and rebut the departmental material. The authorities had relied on inspection findings, non-response to third-party summons, and inferences from stock availability to treat the transactions as bogus, but they were required to independently evaluate the evidence and follow natural justice. The assessee&#039;s offer to produce the sellers was not properly considered, and the claim could not be rejected merely because the sale bills did not mention purchasers&#039; names. Relief granted by the appellate authorities was therefore upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2014 10:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355214" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1194 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165044</link>
      <description>Assessment and penalty under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act were held unsustainable because the assessee was denied an effective opportunity to cross-examine and rebut the departmental material. The authorities had relied on inspection findings, non-response to third-party summons, and inferences from stock availability to treat the transactions as bogus, but they were required to independently evaluate the evidence and follow natural justice. The assessee&#039;s offer to produce the sellers was not properly considered, and the claim could not be rejected merely because the sale bills did not mention purchasers&#039; names. Relief granted by the appellate authorities was therefore upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>