<?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 749 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329040</link>
    <description>Assessment revision based on an alleged input tax credit mismatch was found unsustainable where the adverse finding rested on a ground not raised in the show cause notice, namely movement of goods, and ignored the dealer&#039;s explanation that some sellers had filed returns manually while others had filed them electronically. The authority also failed to deal with the supporting materials, the reduced discrepancy on verification, and the case law cited by the dealer. The finding on the input tax credit difference was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after notice, personal hearing, disclosure of the relevant invoice numbers, and a speaking order in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:52:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432351" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 749 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329040</link>
      <description>Assessment revision based on an alleged input tax credit mismatch was found unsustainable where the adverse finding rested on a ground not raised in the show cause notice, namely movement of goods, and ignored the dealer&#039;s explanation that some sellers had filed returns manually while others had filed them electronically. The authority also failed to deal with the supporting materials, the reduced discrepancy on verification, and the case law cited by the dealer. The finding on the input tax credit difference was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after notice, personal hearing, disclosure of the relevant invoice numbers, and a speaking order in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329040</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>