<?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>2014 (7) TMI 889 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249853</link>
    <description>A tax clarification issued without statutory authority cannot bind the assessing authority or override the TNVAT Act. The Madras High Court held that the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 contained no enabling provision empowering the officer to issue binding circulars or clarifications beyond the statutory scheme, and that a superior tax officer&#039;s clarification cannot add to, subtract from, or control the quasi-judicial discretion of the assessing officer. Section 48A, introduced later, did not confer any independent power to sustain the impugned clarification. The clarification was therefore without authority, and the petitioner&#039;s objections had to be considered independently in accordance with the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=360596" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 889 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249853</link>
      <description>A tax clarification issued without statutory authority cannot bind the assessing authority or override the TNVAT Act. The Madras High Court held that the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 contained no enabling provision empowering the officer to issue binding circulars or clarifications beyond the statutory scheme, and that a superior tax officer&#039;s clarification cannot add to, subtract from, or control the quasi-judicial discretion of the assessing officer. Section 48A, introduced later, did not confer any independent power to sustain the impugned clarification. The clarification was therefore without authority, and the petitioner&#039;s objections had to be considered independently in accordance with the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249853</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>