<?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 (9) TMI 925 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332664</link>
    <description>Where an assessment is founded on an advance ruling under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, a challenge to its applicability should ordinarily be pursued through the statutory review mechanism before the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling rather than directly in writ jurisdiction. The Court treated the impugned proceedings as an advance ruling under Section 48-A and indicated that any grievance about non-applicability or error in the ruling must be supported by material and placed before the same authority under Section 48-A(4). The authority was directed to consider the review on merits after notice, and the writ petitions were not pursued on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2016 13:44:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441991" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 925 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332664</link>
      <description>Where an assessment is founded on an advance ruling under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, a challenge to its applicability should ordinarily be pursued through the statutory review mechanism before the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling rather than directly in writ jurisdiction. The Court treated the impugned proceedings as an advance ruling under Section 48-A and indicated that any grievance about non-applicability or error in the ruling must be supported by material and placed before the same authority under Section 48-A(4). The authority was directed to consider the review on merits after notice, and the writ petitions were not pursued on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332664</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>