<?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 (8) TMI 87 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330703</link>
    <description>Applications for settlement of arrears under the Tamil Nadu Settlement of Arrears Act, 2011 must follow the statutory process of self-computation by the applicant, verification by the designated authority, determination of payability under the relevant provisions, and refusal only after reasons and a reasonable opportunity are given. Where the authority departs from that procedure, the defect goes to the root of the matter and warrants interference. In this matter, the rejection orders were found to suffer from gross procedural violation, particularly where similar applications for other assessment years had been entertained without a stated basis for differential treatment. The orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after personal hearing and an opportunity to produce books and records.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2016 23:39:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=437207" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 87 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330703</link>
      <description>Applications for settlement of arrears under the Tamil Nadu Settlement of Arrears Act, 2011 must follow the statutory process of self-computation by the applicant, verification by the designated authority, determination of payability under the relevant provisions, and refusal only after reasons and a reasonable opportunity are given. Where the authority departs from that procedure, the defect goes to the root of the matter and warrants interference. In this matter, the rejection orders were found to suffer from gross procedural violation, particularly where similar applications for other assessment years had been entertained without a stated basis for differential treatment. The orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after personal hearing and an opportunity to produce books and records.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330703</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>