<?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 (9) TMI 588 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159790</link>
    <description>Tax search and seizure remains valid where recorded discrepancies in challans, registers, account books, stock figures and sales position create a bona fide reasonable suspicion of tax evasion. Judicial review does not reassess the sufficiency of that material unless the action has no basis or is wholly perverse. Recording reasons while the seizure receipt was being prepared did not invalidate the seizure, because seizure was completed only upon taking possession after issuing the receipt. Substantial compliance with procedural safeguards was sufficient: one signed witness, including the dealer&#039;s employee, was adequate, and omission of the witness&#039;s address did not prove invalidity absent prejudice or fundamental illegality.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2013 12:40:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337875" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 588 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159790</link>
      <description>Tax search and seizure remains valid where recorded discrepancies in challans, registers, account books, stock figures and sales position create a bona fide reasonable suspicion of tax evasion. Judicial review does not reassess the sufficiency of that material unless the action has no basis or is wholly perverse. Recording reasons while the seizure receipt was being prepared did not invalidate the seizure, because seizure was completed only upon taking possession after issuing the receipt. Substantial compliance with procedural safeguards was sufficient: one signed witness, including the dealer&#039;s employee, was adequate, and omission of the witness&#039;s address did not prove invalidity absent prejudice or fundamental illegality.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159790</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>