https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158303 Later discovered inspection and search material justified reopening where exemption had been wrongly granted, because the transactions were found to be abnormal and not genuine; the reassessment under section 14(4)(cc) was therefore valid and the challenge failed. Penalty under section 7A(2) was also sustained because the purchase bills were produced to support an exemption claim, the underlying sales and repurchases were found fictitious, and the documents contained false particulars used to suppress taxable turnover. The court further held that findings in another dealer's assessment did not bind the assessing authority in this proceeding. en-us Thu, 23 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Oct 2013 17:48:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158303 Later discovered inspection and search material justified reopening where exemption had been wrongly granted, because the transactions were found to be abnormal and not genuine; the reassessment under section 14(4)(cc) was therefore valid and the challenge failed. Penalty under section 7A(2) was also sustained because the purchase bills were produced to support an exemption claim, the underlying sales and repurchases were found fictitious, and the documents contained false particulars used to suppress taxable turnover. The court further held that findings in another dealer's assessment did not bind the assessing authority in this proceeding. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 23 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158303