<?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 (4) TMI 469 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155491</link>
    <description>Turnover deduction could not be denied merely because prescribed declaration forms were lost where the applicable rules and form format changed during the assessment year. For the initial period, the declaration form itself remained the only permitted proof, so refusal of deduction was sustained. For the later periods, the assessee could rely on counterfoils retained by purchasing dealers or duplicates held by issuing officers, and the assessing authority was expected to use its civil-court-like power to summon witnesses and documents. Failure to consider those available modes of proof was treated as an error of law, and the assessment was directed to be set aside for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2013 17:12:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172522" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (4) TMI 469 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155491</link>
      <description>Turnover deduction could not be denied merely because prescribed declaration forms were lost where the applicable rules and form format changed during the assessment year. For the initial period, the declaration form itself remained the only permitted proof, so refusal of deduction was sustained. For the later periods, the assessee could rely on counterfoils retained by purchasing dealers or duplicates held by issuing officers, and the assessing authority was expected to use its civil-court-like power to summon witnesses and documents. Failure to consider those available modes of proof was treated as an error of law, and the assessment was directed to be set aside for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155491</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>