<?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 (12) TMI 127 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335482</link>
    <description>Disallowance of exemption on high sea sales turnover could not be sustained where the adverse order was passed without notice and without granting a requested personal hearing, despite the relevant documents having been placed before the authority. The Court applied the fairness principle that a specific request for personal hearing forms part of reasonable opportunity before an adverse determination. As the Department&#039;s interest was already protected by bank attachment, the procedural lapse justified interference. The impugned order was set aside only to the extent it related to the high sea sales turnover, and the matter was remitted for a fresh decision after affording personal hearing and proceeding in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Dec 2016 06:41:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450376" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 127 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335482</link>
      <description>Disallowance of exemption on high sea sales turnover could not be sustained where the adverse order was passed without notice and without granting a requested personal hearing, despite the relevant documents having been placed before the authority. The Court applied the fairness principle that a specific request for personal hearing forms part of reasonable opportunity before an adverse determination. As the Department&#039;s interest was already protected by bank attachment, the procedural lapse justified interference. The impugned order was set aside only to the extent it related to the high sea sales turnover, and the matter was remitted for a fresh decision after affording personal hearing and proceeding in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335482</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>