<?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>1993 (7) TMI 316 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156983</link>
    <description>Rejection of the dealer&#039;s accounts was supported by substantial stock discrepancies, defective purchase bills, non-serially machine-numbered sale invoices with corrections, and records indicating unaccounted transactions. The cancelled delivery notes for the disputed rubber were unexplained, and the duplicate copies were not produced for verification. On that factual basis, best judgment assessment was treated as justified. The further addition for 24,000 kgs. of crepe rubber as unaccounted sales was sustained because the alleged loss of delivery notes was not promptly reported, no police complaint was filed, the duplicates were not produced, and the later explanation was found unconvincing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:23:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174009" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (7) TMI 316 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156983</link>
      <description>Rejection of the dealer&#039;s accounts was supported by substantial stock discrepancies, defective purchase bills, non-serially machine-numbered sale invoices with corrections, and records indicating unaccounted transactions. The cancelled delivery notes for the disputed rubber were unexplained, and the duplicate copies were not produced for verification. On that factual basis, best judgment assessment was treated as justified. The further addition for 24,000 kgs. of crepe rubber as unaccounted sales was sustained because the alleged loss of delivery notes was not promptly reported, no police complaint was filed, the duplicates were not produced, and the later explanation was found unconvincing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156983</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>