<?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 1022 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346964</link>
    <description>The Court upheld the Commissioner&#039;s determination of fees for special audit work by Chartered Accountants, rejecting the Petitioner&#039;s claim for payment at ICAI rates. Fees were paid to the Petitioner by registered dealers in most cases, with the Court dismissing objections to the timeliness and maintainability of the petitions. The liability for unpaid fees was shifted from dealers to the DT&amp;amp;T post-amendment, with the DT&amp;amp;T directed to pay outstanding fees to the Petitioner within four weeks, allowing the Commissioner to recover from defaulting dealers. The judgment clarified fee determination, payment issues, and DT&amp;amp;T liability under the DVAT Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486895" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1022 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346964</link>
      <description>The Court upheld the Commissioner&#039;s determination of fees for special audit work by Chartered Accountants, rejecting the Petitioner&#039;s claim for payment at ICAI rates. Fees were paid to the Petitioner by registered dealers in most cases, with the Court dismissing objections to the timeliness and maintainability of the petitions. The liability for unpaid fees was shifted from dealers to the DT&amp;amp;T post-amendment, with the DT&amp;amp;T directed to pay outstanding fees to the Petitioner within four weeks, allowing the Commissioner to recover from defaulting dealers. The judgment clarified fee determination, payment issues, and DT&amp;amp;T liability under the DVAT Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346964</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>