<?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 (12) TMI 604 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159219</link>
    <description>The Tribunal&#039;s reduction of the addition for omission and suppression in turnover was upheld because it had ed the inspection reports and surrounding circumstances, including the nominal excess stock and the fact that the liquor had already suffered tax at first sale. As the order was based on appreciation of evidence by the final fact-finding authority and no perversity or illegality was shown, no interference with the reduction was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:51:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336095" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 604 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159219</link>
      <description>The Tribunal&#039;s reduction of the addition for omission and suppression in turnover was upheld because it had ed the inspection reports and surrounding circumstances, including the nominal excess stock and the fact that the liquor had already suffered tax at first sale. As the order was based on appreciation of evidence by the final fact-finding authority and no perversity or illegality was shown, no interference with the reduction was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159219</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>