<?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 (11) TMI 496 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334478</link>
    <description>An assessment order passed before issuance and service of the relied-on notice was held vitiated for breach of natural justice, because the assessee had no effective pre-decisional opportunity to respond. The court also found that invoking section 84 within a revisional exercise under section 27 was legally unsustainable, as the provision could not be used in that manner at the assessment stage. The assessment order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after due notice and hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:28:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=447689" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 496 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334478</link>
      <description>An assessment order passed before issuance and service of the relied-on notice was held vitiated for breach of natural justice, because the assessee had no effective pre-decisional opportunity to respond. The court also found that invoking section 84 within a revisional exercise under section 27 was legally unsustainable, as the provision could not be used in that manner at the assessment stage. The assessment order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after due notice and hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334478</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>