<?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 (9) TMI 717 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161634</link>
    <description>Revisional action by the Deputy Commissioner was upheld because the notice disclosed the basis of the proposed suo motu revision and the record showed no lack of jurisdiction or absence of independent application of mind. Himtaj oil was treated as hair oil, not an Ayurvedic drug, because its character in common parlance, advertisements and market use did not prove exclusive manufacture under Ayurvedic formulae; the higher tax rate therefore applied. Enhancement of gross turnover based on alleged suppression of sales was set aside since the authorities failed to independently prove concealed sales or any nexus between seized cash and taxable turnover.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2014 13:01:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344808" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 717 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161634</link>
      <description>Revisional action by the Deputy Commissioner was upheld because the notice disclosed the basis of the proposed suo motu revision and the record showed no lack of jurisdiction or absence of independent application of mind. Himtaj oil was treated as hair oil, not an Ayurvedic drug, because its character in common parlance, advertisements and market use did not prove exclusive manufacture under Ayurvedic formulae; the higher tax rate therefore applied. Enhancement of gross turnover based on alleged suppression of sales was set aside since the authorities failed to independently prove concealed sales or any nexus between seized cash and taxable turnover.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161634</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>