<?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>2017 (1) TMI 1117 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338037</link>
    <description>The court set aside the order reversing Input Tax Credit (ITC) on purchases due to non-filing of monthly returns by selling dealers. The judge held that discrepancies should be addressed by allowing the purchasing dealer to clarify transactions before adverse orders. The respondent was directed to reassess after giving the petitioner an opportunity to present their case. The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:34:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=456213" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 1117 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338037</link>
      <description>The court set aside the order reversing Input Tax Credit (ITC) on purchases due to non-filing of monthly returns by selling dealers. The judge held that discrepancies should be addressed by allowing the purchasing dealer to clarify transactions before adverse orders. The respondent was directed to reassess after giving the petitioner an opportunity to present their case. The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338037</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>