<?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>2009 (12) TMI 858 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164231</link>
    <description>Non-surrender of transit passes under section 46(15)(d) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 gave rise to a statutory presumption that the goods were sold within Assam, but the presumption was rebuttable and not conclusive. The revisional authority was required to examine credible documentary material offered to show that the vehicles had crossed Assam and the goods had been delivered and sold in Mizoram. By treating the presumption as absolute and failing to assess the probative value of the documents produced, including materials from the Mizoram taxing authority, the authority acted on an erroneous legal footing. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353406" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 858 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164231</link>
      <description>Non-surrender of transit passes under section 46(15)(d) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 gave rise to a statutory presumption that the goods were sold within Assam, but the presumption was rebuttable and not conclusive. The revisional authority was required to examine credible documentary material offered to show that the vehicles had crossed Assam and the goods had been delivered and sold in Mizoram. By treating the presumption as absolute and failing to assess the probative value of the documents produced, including materials from the Mizoram taxing authority, the authority acted on an erroneous legal footing. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164231</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>