<?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>2024 (6) TMI 1171 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754564</link>
    <description>A substantial mismatch between departmental purchase data and the assessee&#039;s monthly returns justified the assessment of suppressed turnover. Although the assessee relied on ledger accounts, profit and loss statements and balance sheets to contend that only concessional tax under Section 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act was payable, the Court held that after remand it was incumbent on the assessee to provide a clear and complete explanation for the discrepancy. No satisfactory reply was furnished, so the writ court declined to interfere with the assessment order and upheld it, while leaving the statutory appellate remedy open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2024 08:52:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=757672" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 1171 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754564</link>
      <description>A substantial mismatch between departmental purchase data and the assessee&#039;s monthly returns justified the assessment of suppressed turnover. Although the assessee relied on ledger accounts, profit and loss statements and balance sheets to contend that only concessional tax under Section 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act was payable, the Court held that after remand it was incumbent on the assessee to provide a clear and complete explanation for the discrepancy. No satisfactory reply was furnished, so the writ court declined to interfere with the assessment order and upheld it, while leaving the statutory appellate remedy open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>