<?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 (9) TMI 1851 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465270</link>
    <description>A delayed tax reassessment was not set aside because the delay was substantially attributable to the assessee&#039;s own conduct, including the pendency of intra-court appeals and failure to pursue them promptly. The Court held that the Revenue could not be blamed for the entire lapse of time, so the revised assessment orders were not interfered with on delay grounds. The natural justice challenge also failed because there was no reliable proof of a specific request for the D3 report, and the record showed that opportunities had been given and no prejudice was established. The revised assessment orders were upheld, subject to personal hearing and completion of reassessment in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Dec 2025 11:30:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=871383" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 1851 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465270</link>
      <description>A delayed tax reassessment was not set aside because the delay was substantially attributable to the assessee&#039;s own conduct, including the pendency of intra-court appeals and failure to pursue them promptly. The Court held that the Revenue could not be blamed for the entire lapse of time, so the revised assessment orders were not interfered with on delay grounds. The natural justice challenge also failed because there was no reliable proof of a specific request for the D3 report, and the record showed that opportunities had been given and no prejudice was established. The revised assessment orders were upheld, subject to personal hearing and completion of reassessment in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465270</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>