<?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 (8) TMI 833 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164076</link>
    <description>Non-production of the original stock register, purchase vouchers, permit and other statutory records justified rejection of the dealer&#039;s account books, because the required documents were not produced for verification despite opportunity. The plea that the stock register had been lost, and that a duplicate register could be relied on, failed because its preparation was not satisfactorily explained. On these facts, best judgment assessment was upheld, the findings being treated as findings of fact based on the material on record. Revisional jurisdiction under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was confined to questions of law, so no interference was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:12:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352553" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 833 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164076</link>
      <description>Non-production of the original stock register, purchase vouchers, permit and other statutory records justified rejection of the dealer&#039;s account books, because the required documents were not produced for verification despite opportunity. The plea that the stock register had been lost, and that a duplicate register could be relied on, failed because its preparation was not satisfactorily explained. On these facts, best judgment assessment was upheld, the findings being treated as findings of fact based on the material on record. Revisional jurisdiction under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was confined to questions of law, so no interference was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164076</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>