<?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>2015 (8) TMI 1241 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263324</link>
    <description>The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the communication from the Assistant Commissioner requesting the attendance of officers for trial production. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer, not the Assistant Commissioner, should conduct fact-finding exercises and inspections, especially when the petitioner is registered with the Assessing Officer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2015 07:58:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395315" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1241 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263324</link>
      <description>The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the communication from the Assistant Commissioner requesting the attendance of officers for trial production. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer, not the Assistant Commissioner, should conduct fact-finding exercises and inspections, especially when the petitioner is registered with the Assessing Officer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>