<?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>2008 (4) TMI 687 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163207</link>
    <description>The notice requiring production of books and documents under the taxing statute was upheld because the authority had power to call for records and no specific jurisdictional defect was shown. Seizure of books of account and other documents was also upheld, as the recorded allegations of misclassification and accounting higher-rate goods at a lower rate satisfied the statutory requirement of reason to believe that tax was being evaded. Seizure of goods found in the godown was valid because the stock did not tally with the invoices and was not duly accounted for in the ordinary course of business. The availability of a statutory revision remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the action was alleged to be without authority or without jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2014 12:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349764" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 687 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163207</link>
      <description>The notice requiring production of books and documents under the taxing statute was upheld because the authority had power to call for records and no specific jurisdictional defect was shown. Seizure of books of account and other documents was also upheld, as the recorded allegations of misclassification and accounting higher-rate goods at a lower rate satisfied the statutory requirement of reason to believe that tax was being evaded. Seizure of goods found in the godown was valid because the stock did not tally with the invoices and was not duly accounted for in the ordinary course of business. The availability of a statutory revision remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the action was alleged to be without authority or without jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163207</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>