<?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>1996 (3) TMI 477 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158238</link>
    <description>A turnover estimate based on four to six times the running stock is justified only where the facts show a continuing pattern of suppression. On the facts recorded, the assessment rested on a solitary inspection and an isolated stock discrepancy, including short stock of old gold ornaments, without proof of wilful or systematic suppression. The Tribunal found that this factual matrix did not support treating the dealer&#039;s case as one of ongoing concealment, and the revisional court found no reason to disturb that conclusion. The higher-multiple estimate and lump sum addition were therefore not warranted on these facts, and the assessee&#039;s relief remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:37:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=330250" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 477 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158238</link>
      <description>A turnover estimate based on four to six times the running stock is justified only where the facts show a continuing pattern of suppression. On the facts recorded, the assessment rested on a solitary inspection and an isolated stock discrepancy, including short stock of old gold ornaments, without proof of wilful or systematic suppression. The Tribunal found that this factual matrix did not support treating the dealer&#039;s case as one of ongoing concealment, and the revisional court found no reason to disturb that conclusion. The higher-multiple estimate and lump sum addition were therefore not warranted on these facts, and the assessee&#039;s relief remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158238</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>