<?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>2000 (9) TMI 1008 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160428</link>
    <description>Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was held to protect a sick industrial company only from coercive recovery measures, not from assessment, appeal, revision or the running of limitation under the sales tax law; the assessment was therefore not barred. The best judgment assessment was upheld because the assessee failed to produce books of account and showed no material that the turnover estimate was arbitrary or unsupported. The appeal was rejected for non-payment of admitted tax, since such payment was a condition precedent to maintainability, and the delayed revision disclosed no sufficient cause for interference or remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2013 18:24:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339712" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 1008 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160428</link>
      <description>Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was held to protect a sick industrial company only from coercive recovery measures, not from assessment, appeal, revision or the running of limitation under the sales tax law; the assessment was therefore not barred. The best judgment assessment was upheld because the assessee failed to produce books of account and showed no material that the turnover estimate was arbitrary or unsupported. The appeal was rejected for non-payment of admitted tax, since such payment was a condition precedent to maintainability, and the delayed revision disclosed no sufficient cause for interference or remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>