<?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>1991 (7) TMI 353 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157323</link>
    <description>Territorial jurisdiction objections to sales tax assessments were held barred when not raised within the prescribed time, and anti-evasion officers were treated as competent to proceed once evasion was detected. The challenge based on bias also failed because the assessment remained subject to appeal and revision. Provisions enabling determination of the real sale price, where accounts showed lower prices to evade tax, were upheld as valid machinery provisions because they contained workable guidelines for comparing market prices and discount practice, so they were not arbitrary or beyond legislative competence. Refusal of stay and insistence on statutory deposit for appeal were not interfered with in writ jurisdiction, as those matters lay within the statutory appellate scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 12:06:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (7) TMI 353 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157323</link>
      <description>Territorial jurisdiction objections to sales tax assessments were held barred when not raised within the prescribed time, and anti-evasion officers were treated as competent to proceed once evasion was detected. The challenge based on bias also failed because the assessment remained subject to appeal and revision. Provisions enabling determination of the real sale price, where accounts showed lower prices to evade tax, were upheld as valid machinery provisions because they contained workable guidelines for comparing market prices and discount practice, so they were not arbitrary or beyond legislative competence. Refusal of stay and insistence on statutory deposit for appeal were not interfered with in writ jurisdiction, as those matters lay within the statutory appellate scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157323</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>