<?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>2007 (1) TMI 523 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163357</link>
    <description>An appellate tax order cannot stand where it is founded on additional evidence produced for the first time in second appeal without a formal admission order and without giving the Revenue a fair chance to meet that material. The Court treated this procedural defect as going to the root of the decision because the disputed documents materially supported the Tribunal&#039;s conclusion. The plea of waiver failed, as the absence of an earlier objection did not cure the prejudice caused by consideration of evidence placed behind the Revenue&#039;s back. The impugned orders were liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision after both sides were allowed to lead and rebut evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:01:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (1) TMI 523 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163357</link>
      <description>An appellate tax order cannot stand where it is founded on additional evidence produced for the first time in second appeal without a formal admission order and without giving the Revenue a fair chance to meet that material. The Court treated this procedural defect as going to the root of the decision because the disputed documents materially supported the Tribunal&#039;s conclusion. The plea of waiver failed, as the absence of an earlier objection did not cure the prejudice caused by consideration of evidence placed behind the Revenue&#039;s back. The impugned orders were liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision after both sides were allowed to lead and rebut evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163357</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>