<?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>2018 (1) TMI 291 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353555</link>
    <description>The amended procedure for opting to pay compounded tax on works contract under Section 7-C, introduced through Section 7-C(2-A), Rule 15(4-CC) and the prescribed form, applied only from 1 July 2002 and not to assessment year 2000-01; payment at the compounded rate and disclosure in the monthly and self-assessment returns were treated as sufficient compliance on the facts. Reassessment was also held unsustainable because the ground ultimately relied on by the Assessing Authority was not disclosed in the pre-revision notice, causing prejudice and violating natural justice. The revision petition therefore failed, and the concurrent findings in favour of the assessee were left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2018 09:12:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503500" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 291 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353555</link>
      <description>The amended procedure for opting to pay compounded tax on works contract under Section 7-C, introduced through Section 7-C(2-A), Rule 15(4-CC) and the prescribed form, applied only from 1 July 2002 and not to assessment year 2000-01; payment at the compounded rate and disclosure in the monthly and self-assessment returns were treated as sufficient compliance on the facts. Reassessment was also held unsustainable because the ground ultimately relied on by the Assessing Authority was not disclosed in the pre-revision notice, causing prejudice and violating natural justice. The revision petition therefore failed, and the concurrent findings in favour of the assessee were left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353555</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>