<?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 926 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164361</link>
    <description>Rectification under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is confined to mistakes apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue the merits or correct issues needing detailed reasoning. The Tribunal had already considered the objection concerning one ground for rejection of the account books, and the assessment was supported by multiple independent grounds. A mere difference of judicial view did not amount to an apparent error, so the rectification application was rightly rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:42:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353601" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 926 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164361</link>
      <description>Rectification under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is confined to mistakes apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue the merits or correct issues needing detailed reasoning. The Tribunal had already considered the objection concerning one ground for rejection of the account books, and the assessment was supported by multiple independent grounds. A mere difference of judicial view did not amount to an apparent error, so the rectification application was rightly rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164361</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>