<?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 (7) TMI 925 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164359</link>
    <description>Rejection of books of account and estimation of taxable turnover were sustained where the dealer&#039;s returns did not match the account books, the survey material and show-cause notice supported the assessment, and the dealer failed to appear or explain the seized bilities. The fall in turnover was not the sole basis for rejection, and the explanation for that decline did not cure the other discrepancies. An undisclosed inter-State sale was also admitted, no revised Central return was filed, and these facts justified the conclusion that the accounts were not properly maintained and turnover had been suppressed. Revisional interference was therefore unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353599" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 925 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164359</link>
      <description>Rejection of books of account and estimation of taxable turnover were sustained where the dealer&#039;s returns did not match the account books, the survey material and show-cause notice supported the assessment, and the dealer failed to appear or explain the seized bilities. The fall in turnover was not the sole basis for rejection, and the explanation for that decline did not cure the other discrepancies. An undisclosed inter-State sale was also admitted, no revised Central return was filed, and these facts justified the conclusion that the accounts were not properly maintained and turnover had been suppressed. Revisional interference was therefore unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164359</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>