<?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>1986 (1) TMI 364 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154520</link>
    <description>A tax concession based on a declared end-use must be supported by full disclosure of the relevant primary facts. Where packing materials purchased under the Bihar Sales Tax Act were later used outside Bihar contrary to the declaration, their value ceased to remain outside the taxable turnover, and the omission in the return amounted to escapement justifying reassessment under section 18(1)(a). The omission was not confined to section 18(1)(b), and earlier proceedings on a different issue did not bar reopening. Although reassessment was sustained, penalty was not upheld because the statutory position was unclear and the dealer could have acted under a bona fide mistaken view.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:27:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171551" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (1) TMI 364 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154520</link>
      <description>A tax concession based on a declared end-use must be supported by full disclosure of the relevant primary facts. Where packing materials purchased under the Bihar Sales Tax Act were later used outside Bihar contrary to the declaration, their value ceased to remain outside the taxable turnover, and the omission in the return amounted to escapement justifying reassessment under section 18(1)(a). The omission was not confined to section 18(1)(b), and earlier proceedings on a different issue did not bar reopening. Although reassessment was sustained, penalty was not upheld because the statutory position was unclear and the dealer could have acted under a bona fide mistaken view.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154520</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>