<?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 524 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331140</link>
    <description>Assessment orders were challenged as having proceeded on grounds different from the show cause notice and without proper consideration of the taxpayer&#039;s objections. The notice had proposed revision on the alleged higher tax rate and possible application of section 27 if branch-wise details were not produced, but the orders did not address the specific contention that the lodging facility was run by a different entity. The absence of personal hearing and failure to examine the materials furnished rendered the decision-making process unfair, and the advance ruling referred to in the order was also required to be considered. The orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the taxpayer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Aug 2016 13:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=438281" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 524 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331140</link>
      <description>Assessment orders were challenged as having proceeded on grounds different from the show cause notice and without proper consideration of the taxpayer&#039;s objections. The notice had proposed revision on the alleged higher tax rate and possible application of section 27 if branch-wise details were not produced, but the orders did not address the specific contention that the lodging facility was run by a different entity. The absence of personal hearing and failure to examine the materials furnished rendered the decision-making process unfair, and the advance ruling referred to in the order was also required to be considered. The orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the taxpayer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331140</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>