<?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>2016 (6) TMI 1423 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297074</link>
    <description>A distraint order based on an assessment order that had not been communicated could not stand, particularly where an earlier proceeding had already set aside the attachment order and directed reconsideration. The subsequent direction to redo the matter meant the distraint order had no independent survival, and the consequential attachment also had to be set aside. The assessment process itself was left open to be completed in accordance with law and the earlier direction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:26:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=653117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 1423 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297074</link>
      <description>A distraint order based on an assessment order that had not been communicated could not stand, particularly where an earlier proceeding had already set aside the attachment order and directed reconsideration. The subsequent direction to redo the matter meant the distraint order had no independent survival, and the consequential attachment also had to be set aside. The assessment process itself was left open to be completed in accordance with law and the earlier direction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297074</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>