<?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>1974 (11) TMI 85 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150919</link>
    <description>Enhancement of gross turnover was held unsustainable because the authorities relied only on suspicion drawn from an unexplained sugar consumption estimate and produced no basic material to discard the disclosed figures or justify an estimated addition. The article also states that, for the relevant period, the unqualified entry for &quot;sugar&quot; covered pure forms of sugar in common or commercial parlance, including batasa, sugar-candy and chironjidana, especially in light of allied fiscal enactments and the later exclusionary amendments. The turnover enhancement was therefore illegal, and sales of those goods were treated as sales of sugar within entry 41.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:42:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167958" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (11) TMI 85 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150919</link>
      <description>Enhancement of gross turnover was held unsustainable because the authorities relied only on suspicion drawn from an unexplained sugar consumption estimate and produced no basic material to discard the disclosed figures or justify an estimated addition. The article also states that, for the relevant period, the unqualified entry for &quot;sugar&quot; covered pure forms of sugar in common or commercial parlance, including batasa, sugar-candy and chironjidana, especially in light of allied fiscal enactments and the later exclusionary amendments. The turnover enhancement was therefore illegal, and sales of those goods were treated as sales of sugar within entry 41.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150919</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>