<?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 (1) TMI 416 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159008</link>
    <description>A reference under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act was not maintainable where the proposed questions concerned only the correctness of best judgment assessment, rejection of accounts, and the rate applied on the facts. Those matters turned on appreciation of evidence and factual inferences, and the assessee had failed to maintain proper accounts or satisfactorily explain the defects. The High Court held that the earlier decision cited by the Additional Commissioner was used only as a factual guide, not as the basis for any independent legal issue. No referable question of law arose, so refusal to call for a reference was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:21:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335533" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (1) TMI 416 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159008</link>
      <description>A reference under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act was not maintainable where the proposed questions concerned only the correctness of best judgment assessment, rejection of accounts, and the rate applied on the facts. Those matters turned on appreciation of evidence and factual inferences, and the assessee had failed to maintain proper accounts or satisfactorily explain the defects. The High Court held that the earlier decision cited by the Additional Commissioner was used only as a factual guide, not as the basis for any independent legal issue. No referable question of law arose, so refusal to call for a reference was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159008</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>