<?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 (2) TMI 1169 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355748</link>
    <description>Section 64(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 empowers only the Commissioner to order an audit of a registered dealer&#039;s business, and that power cannot be delegated to the Joint Commissioner. The Madras HC followed its earlier ruling on the same issue and held that an audit authorised without jurisdiction was invalid. As the assessment orders were founded on that unauthorised audit, their legal basis failed and the assessments could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:34:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509529" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 1169 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355748</link>
      <description>Section 64(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 empowers only the Commissioner to order an audit of a registered dealer&#039;s business, and that power cannot be delegated to the Joint Commissioner. The Madras HC followed its earlier ruling on the same issue and held that an audit authorised without jurisdiction was invalid. As the assessment orders were founded on that unauthorised audit, their legal basis failed and the assessments could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355748</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>