<?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 (11) TMI 1161 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351282</link>
    <description>A completed sales tax assessment could not be reopened by a show cause notice seeking to reclassify turnover at a higher rate, because the issue had already been covered by binding precedent and the assessment had been finalised. A retrospective clarification could not unsettle a concluded assessment, especially where the statutory entry remained unamended and the same reopening had previously been held without jurisdiction. The notice was quashed as unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2017 11:26:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=497302" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1161 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351282</link>
      <description>A completed sales tax assessment could not be reopened by a show cause notice seeking to reclassify turnover at a higher rate, because the issue had already been covered by binding precedent and the assessment had been finalised. A retrospective clarification could not unsettle a concluded assessment, especially where the statutory entry remained unamended and the same reopening had previously been held without jurisdiction. The notice was quashed as unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351282</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>