<?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 (5) TMI 302 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155828</link>
    <description>A factual finding may be interfered with in revision where it is based on non-consideration of material and relevant evidence vital to the issue decided. The dispute concerned whether the supply of paper and the printing work constituted one indivisible contract or two separate contracts. The Tribunal reversed the consistent findings of the lower authorities without considering the dealer&#039;s register entries and related accounts, which were relied on as an admission of a combined price and an indivisible transaction. That omission vitiated the Tribunal&#039;s conclusion, and revisional interference was justified in favour of the Revenue, with the matter remitted for fresh consideration according to law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 13:00:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172855" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (5) TMI 302 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155828</link>
      <description>A factual finding may be interfered with in revision where it is based on non-consideration of material and relevant evidence vital to the issue decided. The dispute concerned whether the supply of paper and the printing work constituted one indivisible contract or two separate contracts. The Tribunal reversed the consistent findings of the lower authorities without considering the dealer&#039;s register entries and related accounts, which were relied on as an admission of a combined price and an indivisible transaction. That omission vitiated the Tribunal&#039;s conclusion, and revisional interference was justified in favour of the Revenue, with the matter remitted for fresh consideration according to law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155828</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>