<?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 (9) TMI 414 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263746</link>
    <description>Goods diverted in transit without the prescribed VAT supporting documents were found insufficiently documented, and no prima facie basis was shown to interfere with the detention notice in writ jurisdiction. The Court therefore declined to quash the detention or permit release of the goods without complying with the tax and compounding fee demand. It also preserved the petitioner&#039;s right to pursue the statutory revision remedy under the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2015 08:49:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396314" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 414 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263746</link>
      <description>Goods diverted in transit without the prescribed VAT supporting documents were found insufficiently documented, and no prima facie basis was shown to interfere with the detention notice in writ jurisdiction. The Court therefore declined to quash the detention or permit release of the goods without complying with the tax and compounding fee demand. It also preserved the petitioner&#039;s right to pursue the statutory revision remedy under the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263746</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>