<?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>1994 (11) TMI 375 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157920</link>
    <description>A reassessment under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was unsustainable where the assessees supported their second-sale exemption claim for groundnut purchases with bills, registration particulars and transport permits, and the Revenue failed to produce positive, reliable material showing the sellers were fictitious or the documents were bogus. Untested third-party statements could not displace contemporaneous documentary evidence or justify reopening. On the same facts, penalty for suppression was not leviable because the exemption claim had been bona fide and originally accepted, with no wilful non-disclosure shown. The revisions were dismissed and the Tribunal&#039;s relief in favour of the assessees was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Oct 2013 13:38:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=308590" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (11) TMI 375 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157920</link>
      <description>A reassessment under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was unsustainable where the assessees supported their second-sale exemption claim for groundnut purchases with bills, registration particulars and transport permits, and the Revenue failed to produce positive, reliable material showing the sellers were fictitious or the documents were bogus. Untested third-party statements could not displace contemporaneous documentary evidence or justify reopening. On the same facts, penalty for suppression was not leviable because the exemption claim had been bona fide and originally accepted, with no wilful non-disclosure shown. The revisions were dismissed and the Tribunal&#039;s relief in favour of the assessees was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157920</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>