<?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>1987 (8) TMI 419 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155374</link>
    <description>A dealer is assessed on the aggregate turnover of the assessment year, and the same individual does not become a separate assessable entity merely because brick-kiln business was carried on at different places or in different periods within that year. Separate assessment orders were therefore not justified on that basis, and the clubbing of turnover was upheld. The enhancement of the sale rate used for valuing bricks, however, required fresh factual examination because the evidentiary basis for the higher rate and the assessee&#039;s lower average rate were both in dispute. The matter was remitted only for reconsideration of the valuation issue, leaving the assessment otherwise intact.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2013 17:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172405" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (8) TMI 419 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155374</link>
      <description>A dealer is assessed on the aggregate turnover of the assessment year, and the same individual does not become a separate assessable entity merely because brick-kiln business was carried on at different places or in different periods within that year. Separate assessment orders were therefore not justified on that basis, and the clubbing of turnover was upheld. The enhancement of the sale rate used for valuing bricks, however, required fresh factual examination because the evidentiary basis for the higher rate and the assessee&#039;s lower average rate were both in dispute. The matter was remitted only for reconsideration of the valuation issue, leaving the assessment otherwise intact.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155374</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>