<?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>2016 (6) TMI 391 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328682</link>
    <description>Electronic service of DVAT notices on departmental website was treated as valid where the prescribed system under the Act, Rules and IT Act made notices accessible to registered dealers. Writ jurisdiction was also held not barred by an alternative remedy when the assessment notices showed obvious and glaring defects. However, default assessment notices were invalidated because they were internally inconsistent, mechanically generated and reflected non-application of mind, including apparent mismatch between zero turnover and tax demands and an erroneous use of the DVAT regime for interstate sales. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after an effective opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2016 17:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=431180" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 391 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328682</link>
      <description>Electronic service of DVAT notices on departmental website was treated as valid where the prescribed system under the Act, Rules and IT Act made notices accessible to registered dealers. Writ jurisdiction was also held not barred by an alternative remedy when the assessment notices showed obvious and glaring defects. However, default assessment notices were invalidated because they were internally inconsistent, mechanically generated and reflected non-application of mind, including apparent mismatch between zero turnover and tax demands and an erroneous use of the DVAT regime for interstate sales. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after an effective opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328682</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>