<?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 (2) TMI 312 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157706</link>
    <description>An official inspection report prepared by a public officer in the discharge of statutory duties may be relied on for assessment purposes, because it carries a presumption of regularity unless cogent and convincing material shows it is unreliable. The report here could therefore sustain rejection of the assessee&#039;s accounts and a best judgment assessment; objections based only on the assessee&#039;s absence or lack of signature were insufficient. A separate challenge seeking cross-examination of the Inspecting Officer also failed, as no enforceable right to such cross-examination was recognised in the circumstances. The assessment based on the inspection report was consequently restored in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2013 17:22:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174729" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (2) TMI 312 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157706</link>
      <description>An official inspection report prepared by a public officer in the discharge of statutory duties may be relied on for assessment purposes, because it carries a presumption of regularity unless cogent and convincing material shows it is unreliable. The report here could therefore sustain rejection of the assessee&#039;s accounts and a best judgment assessment; objections based only on the assessee&#039;s absence or lack of signature were insufficient. A separate challenge seeking cross-examination of the Inspecting Officer also failed, as no enforceable right to such cross-examination was recognised in the circumstances. The assessment based on the inspection report was consequently restored in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157706</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>