<?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>2001 (4) TMI 896 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161318</link>
    <description>Suppressed turnover detected from unaccounted records cannot be apportioned on a speculative 50:50 basis between taxable and exempt sales unless the assessee proves that the transactions relate to tax-suffered or exempt goods. The earlier apportionment precedent was held inapplicable because the goods were grams and no evidentiary basis supported an equal split. Where inspection records affirmatively establish unaccounted transactions and the assessee fails to reconcile them with the regular books, the conduct amounts to wilful suppression rather than a mere technical lapse, so penalty is warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:47:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 896 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161318</link>
      <description>Suppressed turnover detected from unaccounted records cannot be apportioned on a speculative 50:50 basis between taxable and exempt sales unless the assessee proves that the transactions relate to tax-suffered or exempt goods. The earlier apportionment precedent was held inapplicable because the goods were grams and no evidentiary basis supported an equal split. Where inspection records affirmatively establish unaccounted transactions and the assessee fails to reconcile them with the regular books, the conduct amounts to wilful suppression rather than a mere technical lapse, so penalty is warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161318</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>