https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128531 The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, finding that there was no evidence to support the Board of Revenue's conclusion that extra tax had been collected. The Court determined that the price differentials were due to market conditions and credit facilities, not additional tax. Additionally, the Court held that the assessing authorities had not proven that any additional tax was collected by the dealer. As a result, the Court allowed the petition, awarded costs to the appellant, and rejected the Board of Revenue's order. en-us Wed, 19 Dec 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Apr 2013 18:07:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128531 The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, finding that there was no evidence to support the Board of Revenue's conclusion that extra tax had been collected. The Court determined that the price differentials were due to market conditions and credit facilities, not additional tax. Additionally, the Court held that the assessing authorities had not proven that any additional tax was collected by the dealer. As a result, the Court allowed the petition, awarded costs to the appellant, and rejected the Board of Revenue's order. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 19 Dec 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128531