https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127104 Rule 36 requiring duplicate copies of cash receipts or bills was upheld as a valid exercise of the general rule-making power under Section 26, because it was reasonably necessary to detect undisclosed books and verify the genuineness of accounts. The assessment was also sustained, as the record showed the assessing officer gave the dealer an opportunity to produce evidence and the dealer failed to do so; the claim that the officer had not personally dealt with the matter was rejected. The challenge to both the rule and the assessment therefore failed. en-us Tue, 02 Apr 1946 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:28:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127104 Rule 36 requiring duplicate copies of cash receipts or bills was upheld as a valid exercise of the general rule-making power under Section 26, because it was reasonably necessary to detect undisclosed books and verify the genuineness of accounts. The assessment was also sustained, as the record showed the assessing officer gave the dealer an opportunity to produce evidence and the dealer failed to do so; the claim that the officer had not personally dealt with the matter was rejected. The challenge to both the rule and the assessment therefore failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 02 Apr 1946 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127104