<?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>1990 (2) TMI 287 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156204</link>
    <description>Reopening of assessment under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 must rest on information available to the assessing authority when the reassessment is initiated; later material cannot retrospectively supply the required reason to believe. On the original information from the District Supply Officer, no reasonable basis was shown to believe that turnover had escaped assessment or that unrecorded coal purchases supported extra production, so the reassessment lacked a valid foundation. The Tribunal erred in relying on evidence produced for the first time much later, because that material was not before the authorities when reopening was commenced. The finding therefore favoured the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:39:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173231" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (2) TMI 287 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156204</link>
      <description>Reopening of assessment under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 must rest on information available to the assessing authority when the reassessment is initiated; later material cannot retrospectively supply the required reason to believe. On the original information from the District Supply Officer, no reasonable basis was shown to believe that turnover had escaped assessment or that unrecorded coal purchases supported extra production, so the reassessment lacked a valid foundation. The Tribunal erred in relying on evidence produced for the first time much later, because that material was not before the authorities when reopening was commenced. The finding therefore favoured the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156204</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>