<?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>2019 (5) TMI 709 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379981</link>
    <description>Reversal of input tax credit, levy on discount turnover and penalty were quashed where the assessment order was based on factually incorrect assumptions and failed to consider the documents and corrected dealer particulars produced by the taxpayer. The Court held that the order reflected total non-application of mind because it wrongly proceeded as if no original invoices or documentary evidence had been filed, while itself recording the corrected details furnished by the taxpayer. As the mismatch verification and consequential penalty were unsupported by proper scrutiny on the recorded facts, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after giving adequate opportunity, including personal hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 May 2019 07:17:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=570729" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 709 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379981</link>
      <description>Reversal of input tax credit, levy on discount turnover and penalty were quashed where the assessment order was based on factually incorrect assumptions and failed to consider the documents and corrected dealer particulars produced by the taxpayer. The Court held that the order reflected total non-application of mind because it wrongly proceeded as if no original invoices or documentary evidence had been filed, while itself recording the corrected details furnished by the taxpayer. As the mismatch verification and consequential penalty were unsupported by proper scrutiny on the recorded facts, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after giving adequate opportunity, including personal hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379981</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>