<?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 (10) TMI 619 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164122</link>
    <description>Revisional jurisdiction under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was held available where the revision rested on later-acquired material from income-tax proceedings and on a point not decided in the earlier appeal. The earlier appeal concerned only the reasonableness of the original turnover estimate on the materials then available, while the revision was based on the assessee&#039;s admission of unaccounted sales before the Income-tax Settlement Commission. The text also states that an assessment causing loss of tax is prejudicial to revenue for purposes of section 35(1), because non-interference would permit underassessment and loss to the State.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352611" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 619 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164122</link>
      <description>Revisional jurisdiction under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was held available where the revision rested on later-acquired material from income-tax proceedings and on a point not decided in the earlier appeal. The earlier appeal concerned only the reasonableness of the original turnover estimate on the materials then available, while the revision was based on the assessee&#039;s admission of unaccounted sales before the Income-tax Settlement Commission. The text also states that an assessment causing loss of tax is prejudicial to revenue for purposes of section 35(1), because non-interference would permit underassessment and loss to the State.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164122</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>