<?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 (8) TMI 1017 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384828</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act could be imposed only after a reasonable opportunity to show cause. The earlier notice dated 19.10.2015 did not propose penalty, and the revenue failed to prove service of the later communication dated 01.04.2019. Because the statutory pre-decisional safeguard of prior notice and opportunity was not satisfied, the revised assessment order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2019 06:36:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=584726" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 1017 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384828</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act could be imposed only after a reasonable opportunity to show cause. The earlier notice dated 19.10.2015 did not propose penalty, and the revenue failed to prove service of the later communication dated 01.04.2019. Because the statutory pre-decisional safeguard of prior notice and opportunity was not satisfied, the revised assessment order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384828</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>