<?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>1968 (10) TMI 96 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148566</link>
    <description>Reassessment under escaped-assessment provisions requires the assessing authority to have bona fide, relevant material creating a rational belief that turnover has escaped assessment, and the existence of such material is open to judicial scrutiny. Applying that principle, the Court held that a Sales Tax Officer could initiate proceedings under section 21 despite the original assessment having been made by an Assistant Sales Tax Officer, so that jurisdictional objection failed. However, the impugned notices were invalid because the affidavits and survey material did not disclose a definite, recorded basis for reason to believe; the alleged stock discrepancy and suspicious entries were unsupported and amounted to a fishing enquiry. The reassessment notices were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:06:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166606" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (10) TMI 96 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148566</link>
      <description>Reassessment under escaped-assessment provisions requires the assessing authority to have bona fide, relevant material creating a rational belief that turnover has escaped assessment, and the existence of such material is open to judicial scrutiny. Applying that principle, the Court held that a Sales Tax Officer could initiate proceedings under section 21 despite the original assessment having been made by an Assistant Sales Tax Officer, so that jurisdictional objection failed. However, the impugned notices were invalid because the affidavits and survey material did not disclose a definite, recorded basis for reason to believe; the alleged stock discrepancy and suspicious entries were unsupported and amounted to a fishing enquiry. The reassessment notices were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148566</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>