<?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 (10) TMI 544 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349389</link>
    <description>Cancellation of registration under the statutory scheme was held unsustainable where the dealer was not afforded the mandated personal hearing before cancellation. The court noted that the hearing requirement under Sections 39(14) and 39(15) could not be treated as harmless merely because the application was filed online, especially after the dealer promptly stated that the filing was a mistake and that another entity was intended. The proposed inspection was also not carried through, and retrospective cancellation was not justified on the facts. The cancellation order and the revisional order refusing restoration were set aside, and registration was directed to be restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:22:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=492396" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 544 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349389</link>
      <description>Cancellation of registration under the statutory scheme was held unsustainable where the dealer was not afforded the mandated personal hearing before cancellation. The court noted that the hearing requirement under Sections 39(14) and 39(15) could not be treated as harmless merely because the application was filed online, especially after the dealer promptly stated that the filing was a mistake and that another entity was intended. The proposed inspection was also not carried through, and retrospective cancellation was not justified on the facts. The cancellation order and the revisional order refusing restoration were set aside, and registration was directed to be restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349389</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>