<?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>1997 (2) TMI 506 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158724</link>
    <description>Section 19B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act requires proof that the assessee actually collected consideration higher than the amount disclosed in the accounts before the assessing authority can reject the book value and estimate turnover on a market-value basis. Mere comparison with jaggery prices charged by other dealers, or reliance on enquiries about market rates, was insufficient because the orders did not record a factual finding of excess collection by the assessee. The Tribunal&#039;s approach, insisting on evidence of actual higher receipt before invoking section 19B, was upheld and the departmental challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:55:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334654" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (2) TMI 506 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158724</link>
      <description>Section 19B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act requires proof that the assessee actually collected consideration higher than the amount disclosed in the accounts before the assessing authority can reject the book value and estimate turnover on a market-value basis. Mere comparison with jaggery prices charged by other dealers, or reliance on enquiries about market rates, was insufficient because the orders did not record a factual finding of excess collection by the assessee. The Tribunal&#039;s approach, insisting on evidence of actual higher receipt before invoking section 19B, was upheld and the departmental challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>