<?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>1992 (9) TMI 328 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157247</link>
    <description>Revisional interference under sales tax law is permissible only when the assessment order is shown to suffer from illegality or impropriety. Where no material was produced before the assessing authority to support a claim that disputed receipts arose from works contracts or to justify reduction of the profit rate, the revisional authority could not disturb the assessment merely because it preferred a different factual view. It also could not substitute its own conclusion for that of the assessing authority in the absence of supporting material. The assessment relief was therefore not sustained, and the revisional order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 14:16:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174272" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (9) TMI 328 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157247</link>
      <description>Revisional interference under sales tax law is permissible only when the assessment order is shown to suffer from illegality or impropriety. Where no material was produced before the assessing authority to support a claim that disputed receipts arose from works contracts or to justify reduction of the profit rate, the revisional authority could not disturb the assessment merely because it preferred a different factual view. It also could not substitute its own conclusion for that of the assessing authority in the absence of supporting material. The assessment relief was therefore not sustained, and the revisional order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157247</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>