<?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>1995 (12) TMI 352 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158435</link>
    <description>Under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, an ex parte assessment and revisional order sustained turnover by relying on the previous year&#039;s record even though the assessee specifically claimed that the shop was closed and stock had been seized during the relevant assessment period. The text states that, where such a factual dispute is raised, taxable turnover cannot be fixed merely from prior-year figures without a proper enquiry into the actual business position for the period in question. The revisional authority was said to have failed to examine the matter adequately, and the impugned orders were set aside with a remand for fresh consideration in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2013 18:15:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=333603" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (12) TMI 352 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158435</link>
      <description>Under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, an ex parte assessment and revisional order sustained turnover by relying on the previous year&#039;s record even though the assessee specifically claimed that the shop was closed and stock had been seized during the relevant assessment period. The text states that, where such a factual dispute is raised, taxable turnover cannot be fixed merely from prior-year figures without a proper enquiry into the actual business position for the period in question. The revisional authority was said to have failed to examine the matter adequately, and the impugned orders were set aside with a remand for fresh consideration in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158435</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>