<?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>2003 (2) TMI 448 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161544</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the revision petition, disagreeing with the Tribunal&#039;s decision to add five times the actual suppression in the turnover calculation. The court held that such an addition was unwarranted in the absence of excess stock and penalties. The High Court reinstated the order of the first appellate authority, emphasizing that the assessing authority&#039;s method of determining sales turnover was unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:20:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344495" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 448 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161544</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the revision petition, disagreeing with the Tribunal&#039;s decision to add five times the actual suppression in the turnover calculation. The court held that such an addition was unwarranted in the absence of excess stock and penalties. The High Court reinstated the order of the first appellate authority, emphasizing that the assessing authority&#039;s method of determining sales turnover was unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161544</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>