<?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>1984 (6) TMI 203 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154058</link>
    <description>The Court dismissed the revision challenging the addition of suppressed turnover to disclosed turnover for sales tax assessment. The Court held that adding twice the suppressed turnover to the disclosed turnover was reasonable once suppression was proven. The petitioner&#039;s argument that such additions were arbitrary was rejected, citing legal precedents where similar methods were deemed appropriate. The Court declined the oral request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, stating no substantial question of law necessitated intervention. No costs were awarded, and the judgment was to be provided to the petitioner&#039;s counsel on usual terms if requested.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2013 18:18:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171092" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (6) TMI 203 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154058</link>
      <description>The Court dismissed the revision challenging the addition of suppressed turnover to disclosed turnover for sales tax assessment. The Court held that adding twice the suppressed turnover to the disclosed turnover was reasonable once suppression was proven. The petitioner&#039;s argument that such additions were arbitrary was rejected, citing legal precedents where similar methods were deemed appropriate. The Court declined the oral request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, stating no substantial question of law necessitated intervention. No costs were awarded, and the judgment was to be provided to the petitioner&#039;s counsel on usual terms if requested.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154058</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>