<?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>1969 (11) TMI 75 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149772</link>
    <description>A revisional authority cannot assume the role of the assessing officer and make a fresh original assessment of escaped turnover under section 34; it may only examine legality, propriety, or regularity of the order under revision, so the revisional assessment was without jurisdiction. The five-year limitation for assessing escaped turnover under section 16(1) also governs revisional action made subject to the Act, so a direction or assessment beyond that period is unenforceable. On merits, an estimate based on pocket-book material and an arbitrary multiplication to infer suppressed sales lacked a reliable foundation, so the reassessment could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 13:17:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (11) TMI 75 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149772</link>
      <description>A revisional authority cannot assume the role of the assessing officer and make a fresh original assessment of escaped turnover under section 34; it may only examine legality, propriety, or regularity of the order under revision, so the revisional assessment was without jurisdiction. The five-year limitation for assessing escaped turnover under section 16(1) also governs revisional action made subject to the Act, so a direction or assessment beyond that period is unenforceable. On merits, an estimate based on pocket-book material and an arbitrary multiplication to infer suppressed sales lacked a reliable foundation, so the reassessment could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149772</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>