https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162445 The appeal was dismissed as the dealer failed to comply with the provisions of section 9(1-B)(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, by not providing satisfactory proof of payment of the admitted tax. The court upheld the assessing authority's imposition of a higher tax rate due to the applicant's inability to produce necessary documentation. Additionally, the Supreme Court's classification of aluminum coils as unclassified items influenced the decision. The revision petition was found to be without merit, and the Tribunal's judgment was upheld, confirming the applicant's non-compliance with statutory requirements. en-us Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:03:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162445 The appeal was dismissed as the dealer failed to comply with the provisions of section 9(1-B)(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, by not providing satisfactory proof of payment of the admitted tax. The court upheld the assessing authority's imposition of a higher tax rate due to the applicant's inability to produce necessary documentation. Additionally, the Supreme Court's classification of aluminum coils as unclassified items influenced the decision. The revision petition was found to be without merit, and the Tribunal's judgment was upheld, confirming the applicant's non-compliance with statutory requirements. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162445