<?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 (9) TMI 574 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158888</link>
    <description>Where the competent taxing authority validly assigns assessment work within the prescribed circle, an officer acting in a dual capacity as Sales Tax Officer (Administration) may lawfully serve as the assessing authority, so the assessment is not without jurisdiction. The officer&#039;s authority was supported by transfer and specific assignment orders, and there was no statutory bar to such delegation. Separately, rejection of account books was upheld because the assessee failed to produce them during assessment proceedings, and that evidentiary default remained valid even though the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh assessment. The two questions were treated as distinct, and the revision failed on both.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Nov 2013 11:39:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335108" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 574 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158888</link>
      <description>Where the competent taxing authority validly assigns assessment work within the prescribed circle, an officer acting in a dual capacity as Sales Tax Officer (Administration) may lawfully serve as the assessing authority, so the assessment is not without jurisdiction. The officer&#039;s authority was supported by transfer and specific assignment orders, and there was no statutory bar to such delegation. Separately, rejection of account books was upheld because the assessee failed to produce them during assessment proceedings, and that evidentiary default remained valid even though the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh assessment. The two questions were treated as distinct, and the revision failed on both.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>