<?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>1957 (1) TMI 22 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127630</link>
    <description>Undisclosed branch business treated as an extension of the same taxable concern justified assessment to the best of judgment where the dealer failed to register that branch and produced unreliable accounts. The Patna HC analysis states that, on those facts, the assessment under the Bihar Sales Tax Acts was lawful and the statutory penalty attached to the default was also sustainable. It further notes that the assessment for the relevant period was not barred by limitation because the order was passed within the prescribed twenty-four months from the expiry of that period. All references were answered against the dealer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:42:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164505" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (1) TMI 22 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127630</link>
      <description>Undisclosed branch business treated as an extension of the same taxable concern justified assessment to the best of judgment where the dealer failed to register that branch and produced unreliable accounts. The Patna HC analysis states that, on those facts, the assessment under the Bihar Sales Tax Acts was lawful and the statutory penalty attached to the default was also sustainable. It further notes that the assessment for the relevant period was not barred by limitation because the order was passed within the prescribed twenty-four months from the expiry of that period. All references were answered against the dealer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127630</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>