<?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 (3) TMI 967 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164855</link>
    <description>Rule 247 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 requires the revisional authority to hear the applicant and consider the accounts, documents and other evidence produced in revision; it does not permit rejection of that material merely because the dealer had previously defaulted. The text says the authority&#039;s reliance on procedural principles from the Code of Civil Procedure and rules under other enactments was misplaced because the special revision procedure under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 governed the matter. Refusing to admit the evidence was therefore treated as an error of law, and the revisional order confirming the ex parte assessment was set aside and remanded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 May 2014 12:07:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354808" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 967 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164855</link>
      <description>Rule 247 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 requires the revisional authority to hear the applicant and consider the accounts, documents and other evidence produced in revision; it does not permit rejection of that material merely because the dealer had previously defaulted. The text says the authority&#039;s reliance on procedural principles from the Code of Civil Procedure and rules under other enactments was misplaced because the special revision procedure under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 governed the matter. Refusing to admit the evidence was therefore treated as an error of law, and the revisional order confirming the ex parte assessment was set aside and remanded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164855</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>