<?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 (2) TMI 580 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161202</link>
    <description>A revisional court may interfere with a Tribunal&#039;s factual finding where the finding rests on perverse appreciation of evidence or is unsupported by the material on record. Slips recovered during inspection, together with the sale bill and quantity discrepancy, supported the authorities&#039; view that the excess quantity represented suppressed turnover. The Tribunal set aside the concurrent findings without addressing that reasoning and relied on an explanation not borne out by the record, so its cancellation of the addition and consequential penalty was unsustainable. The assessment on suppressed turnover and the penalty were therefore restored, and revision was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:27:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342175" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 580 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161202</link>
      <description>A revisional court may interfere with a Tribunal&#039;s factual finding where the finding rests on perverse appreciation of evidence or is unsupported by the material on record. Slips recovered during inspection, together with the sale bill and quantity discrepancy, supported the authorities&#039; view that the excess quantity represented suppressed turnover. The Tribunal set aside the concurrent findings without addressing that reasoning and relied on an explanation not borne out by the record, so its cancellation of the addition and consequential penalty was unsustainable. The assessment on suppressed turnover and the penalty were therefore restored, and revision was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161202</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>