<?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 (10) TMI 372 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333352</link>
    <description>Penalty was held unsustainable where the revised assessment proceeded under Section 27(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act on the basis of enhanced tax rate for branded bakery products. The assessment also required fresh consideration because the turnover figures showed duplication and the assessee had not been given full particulars of the additional turnover relied on; effective objections could not be filed without disclosure and a proper hearing. The assessment was therefore set aside in part and remitted for de novo consideration on the disputed turnover and rate of tax, while the penalty component was annulled.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:10:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 372 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333352</link>
      <description>Penalty was held unsustainable where the revised assessment proceeded under Section 27(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act on the basis of enhanced tax rate for branded bakery products. The assessment also required fresh consideration because the turnover figures showed duplication and the assessee had not been given full particulars of the additional turnover relied on; effective objections could not be filed without disclosure and a proper hearing. The assessment was therefore set aside in part and remitted for de novo consideration on the disputed turnover and rate of tax, while the penalty component was annulled.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333352</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>