<?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>1982 (11) TMI 162 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154112</link>
    <description>Where a dealer kept no separate accounts for first sales and later sales in iron and steel goods, the assessing authority could determine first sales on an estimated basis. The Tribunal upheld that approach, and revision was declined because estimated assessment is a matter of degree and there was no clear material showing error in the estimate. Earlier similar orders in the assessee&#039;s own case had also been left undisturbed, supporting non-interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Nov 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:45:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171145" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (11) TMI 162 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154112</link>
      <description>Where a dealer kept no separate accounts for first sales and later sales in iron and steel goods, the assessing authority could determine first sales on an estimated basis. The Tribunal upheld that approach, and revision was declined because estimated assessment is a matter of degree and there was no clear material showing error in the estimate. Earlier similar orders in the assessee&#039;s own case had also been left undisturbed, supporting non-interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Nov 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>