<?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 (8) TMI 201 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346143</link>
    <description>The Court held that the notice issued under Section 55 of the TNGST Act lacked jurisdiction as the alleged error was not apparent on the face of the record. Rectification under Section 55 is limited to clerical and arithmetical errors, not requiring detailed investigation. The Department was directed to explore alternative statutory provisions for addressing revenue concerns from revised assessment orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Aug 2017 07:30:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484581" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 201 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346143</link>
      <description>The Court held that the notice issued under Section 55 of the TNGST Act lacked jurisdiction as the alleged error was not apparent on the face of the record. Rectification under Section 55 is limited to clerical and arithmetical errors, not requiring detailed investigation. The Department was directed to explore alternative statutory provisions for addressing revenue concerns from revised assessment orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346143</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>