<?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>1989 (1) TMI 334 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155764</link>
    <description>The Tribunal could not sustain its conclusion on concealment because it accepted the dealer&#039;s failure to disclose required facts within time but did not examine the surrounding circumstances or determine whether tax on the transaction had been paid. The factual basis was therefore incomplete for rejecting the assessing authority&#039;s finding. On that footing, the Tribunal&#039;s order could not stand and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2013 15:48:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172791" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (1) TMI 334 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155764</link>
      <description>The Tribunal could not sustain its conclusion on concealment because it accepted the dealer&#039;s failure to disclose required facts within time but did not examine the surrounding circumstances or determine whether tax on the transaction had been paid. The factual basis was therefore incomplete for rejecting the assessing authority&#039;s finding. On that footing, the Tribunal&#039;s order could not stand and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155764</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>