<?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>1998 (1) TMI 493 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159069</link>
    <description>Concessional tax treatment under section 5 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was treated as supportable where the dealer had produced books of account and declaration forms before the original assessing officer, and the records were later destroyed in a fire. The unsigned draft assessment order prepared in the officer&#039;s handwriting was treated as contemporaneous evidence that the declarations had been verified and accepted. On these facts, a strong presumption arose in favour of the assessee, and the revenue did not rebut it. The inability to produce the same records before the successor officer was therefore not held against the dealer, and the claim under section 5(2)(a)(ii) was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:11:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335679" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 493 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159069</link>
      <description>Concessional tax treatment under section 5 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was treated as supportable where the dealer had produced books of account and declaration forms before the original assessing officer, and the records were later destroyed in a fire. The unsigned draft assessment order prepared in the officer&#039;s handwriting was treated as contemporaneous evidence that the declarations had been verified and accepted. On these facts, a strong presumption arose in favour of the assessee, and the revenue did not rebut it. The inability to produce the same records before the successor officer was therefore not held against the dealer, and the claim under section 5(2)(a)(ii) was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159069</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>