<?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>2013 (9) TMI 259 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236826</link>
    <description>Reassessment under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was treated as permissible where disclosed diesel purchases had not been properly examined for their relevance to manufacture, sale, turnover, and captive power generation. The Court indicated that material already on record can support a belief of escaped turnover if it was not consciously considered in the original assessment, but reopening is barred where it amounts only to a second view on already examined material. On the same reasoning, the sanction and notices were upheld because the record showed a rational basis for reopening and the case was not one of mere change of opinion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199233" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 259 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236826</link>
      <description>Reassessment under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was treated as permissible where disclosed diesel purchases had not been properly examined for their relevance to manufacture, sale, turnover, and captive power generation. The Court indicated that material already on record can support a belief of escaped turnover if it was not consciously considered in the original assessment, but reopening is barred where it amounts only to a second view on already examined material. On the same reasoning, the sanction and notices were upheld because the record showed a rational basis for reopening and the case was not one of mere change of opinion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236826</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>