<?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 (1) TMI 685 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162203</link>
    <description>Rejecting an estimate of arrack turnover requires primary material showing suppression, unaccounted purchases, or taxable sales beyond the accounts. Here, the assessee&#039;s purchases were shown as intra-State and tax-paid, inspections revealed only minor shortages with no excess stock, and no evidence established outside-State purchases or undisclosed transactions. On that record, mere reference to a higher returned turnover was insufficient to justify rejecting the books or estimating taxable turnover. The Tribunal&#039;s view that the recorded turnover represented second sales and that estimation could not rest on presumption was upheld, and the revision failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:19:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346659" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 685 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162203</link>
      <description>Rejecting an estimate of arrack turnover requires primary material showing suppression, unaccounted purchases, or taxable sales beyond the accounts. Here, the assessee&#039;s purchases were shown as intra-State and tax-paid, inspections revealed only minor shortages with no excess stock, and no evidence established outside-State purchases or undisclosed transactions. On that record, mere reference to a higher returned turnover was insufficient to justify rejecting the books or estimating taxable turnover. The Tribunal&#039;s view that the recorded turnover represented second sales and that estimation could not rest on presumption was upheld, and the revision failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162203</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>