<?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 (7) TMI 672 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160075</link>
    <description>Seizure of books of account and related documents from business premises and residences was upheld where contemporaneous reasons recorded by inspecting officers disclosed specific accounting discrepancies giving a reasonable basis to suspect tax evasion. The Tribunal accepted the departmental affidavits as competent in the investigative context and held that the absence or limited number of witnesses at seizure did not invalidate the proceedings, since compliance with criminal procedure was required only as far as possible and the identity of the seized records and place of seizure was not genuinely disputed. Retention orders were also sustained because the applicants were heard and raised no timely objection to retention.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2013 12:42:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 672 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160075</link>
      <description>Seizure of books of account and related documents from business premises and residences was upheld where contemporaneous reasons recorded by inspecting officers disclosed specific accounting discrepancies giving a reasonable basis to suspect tax evasion. The Tribunal accepted the departmental affidavits as competent in the investigative context and held that the absence or limited number of witnesses at seizure did not invalidate the proceedings, since compliance with criminal procedure was required only as far as possible and the identity of the seized records and place of seizure was not genuinely disputed. Retention orders were also sustained because the applicants were heard and raised no timely objection to retention.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160075</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>