<?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>1965 (8) TMI 64 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128969</link>
    <description>For reassessment under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the assessing authority must have relevant material enabling an honest and reasonable belief that turnover has escaped assessment. The court treated discrepancies in earlier account books, including stock and register mismatches, missing delivery memos, unrecorded transport entries, and understated production ratios, as sufficient material. It also held that earlier-year material could support belief of a continuing suppressive pattern into the relevant year, and that the completeness of the material or the stage of tax investigation did not defeat jurisdiction. On that basis, the notice was upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:30:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165838" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (8) TMI 64 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128969</link>
      <description>For reassessment under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the assessing authority must have relevant material enabling an honest and reasonable belief that turnover has escaped assessment. The court treated discrepancies in earlier account books, including stock and register mismatches, missing delivery memos, unrecorded transport entries, and understated production ratios, as sufficient material. It also held that earlier-year material could support belief of a continuing suppressive pattern into the relevant year, and that the completeness of the material or the stage of tax investigation did not defeat jurisdiction. On that basis, the notice was upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128969</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>