<?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>1946 (4) TMI 14 - BIHAR  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127102</link>
    <description>The High Court of Bihar upheld the validity of Rule 36 and affirmed the Assessing Officer&#039;s authority to request specific documents. However, the Court emphasized the importance of considering additional evidence beyond technicalities. The case was remanded for reassessment, allowing the petitioner to provide evidence supporting sales to registered dealers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 1946 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:19:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163980" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1946 (4) TMI 14 - BIHAR  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127102</link>
      <description>The High Court of Bihar upheld the validity of Rule 36 and affirmed the Assessing Officer&#039;s authority to request specific documents. However, the Court emphasized the importance of considering additional evidence beyond technicalities. The case was remanded for reassessment, allowing the petitioner to provide evidence supporting sales to registered dealers.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 1946 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127102</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>