<?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>2008 (7) TMI 839 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128876</link>
    <description>Purchase tax on mohua flower could not be increased by adding 10 per cent for driage and wastage after completion of purchase, because purchase tax attaches to the actual purchase transaction and wastage does not form part of the purchase price. The assessed turnover and price also could not be enhanced on suspicion alone, as best judgment assessment required documentary support, enquiry, and material basis under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The Tribunal further could not sustain the addition on a point not specifically raised in the Revenue&#039;s appeal, since that would deny the dealer a fair opportunity to meet the case. The enhancement was set aside in favour of the dealer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2014 12:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165745" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 839 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128876</link>
      <description>Purchase tax on mohua flower could not be increased by adding 10 per cent for driage and wastage after completion of purchase, because purchase tax attaches to the actual purchase transaction and wastage does not form part of the purchase price. The assessed turnover and price also could not be enhanced on suspicion alone, as best judgment assessment required documentary support, enquiry, and material basis under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The Tribunal further could not sustain the addition on a point not specifically raised in the Revenue&#039;s appeal, since that would deny the dealer a fair opportunity to meet the case. The enhancement was set aside in favour of the dealer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128876</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>