<?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 (11) TMI 1428 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268619</link>
    <description>A registration certificate under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act may be cancelled for good and sufficient reasons, provided the dealer is given an opportunity of hearing under Section 39. The cancellation here was based on non-production of the original lease deed for verification, and the authority treated that as sufficient cause to act. The petitioner&#039;s objections on lease validity, signatures, and ownership involved disputed questions of fact requiring evidence, which are not ordinarily examined in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The availability of a revisional remedy also weighed against interference, so the cancellation order was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406957" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 1428 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268619</link>
      <description>A registration certificate under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act may be cancelled for good and sufficient reasons, provided the dealer is given an opportunity of hearing under Section 39. The cancellation here was based on non-production of the original lease deed for verification, and the authority treated that as sufficient cause to act. The petitioner&#039;s objections on lease validity, signatures, and ownership involved disputed questions of fact requiring evidence, which are not ordinarily examined in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The availability of a revisional remedy also weighed against interference, so the cancellation order was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268619</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>