<?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>2009 (4) TMI 837 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158620</link>
    <description>Reopening of sales tax assessment and penalty cannot rest on incomplete bought vouchers alone where the record does not support suppression of groundnut purchases or unaccounted production. The assessee had produced the vouchers in the original assessment and explained that the oil was manufactured from agriculturists&#039; purchases. The revenue&#039;s inference of purchases outside the books and crushing in a sister concern was rejected because the available material, including the sister concern&#039;s negligible electricity consumption and earlier closure, did not corroborate that case. On that basis, reassessment and the consequential penalty were treated as unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 837 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158620</link>
      <description>Reopening of sales tax assessment and penalty cannot rest on incomplete bought vouchers alone where the record does not support suppression of groundnut purchases or unaccounted production. The assessee had produced the vouchers in the original assessment and explained that the oil was manufactured from agriculturists&#039; purchases. The revenue&#039;s inference of purchases outside the books and crushing in a sister concern was rejected because the available material, including the sister concern&#039;s negligible electricity consumption and earlier closure, did not corroborate that case. On that basis, reassessment and the consequential penalty were treated as unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>