<?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>2010 (9) TMI 981 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165063</link>
    <description>ST 15 declaration forms supporting concessional tax treatment were treated only as prima facie evidence, so the Revenue could disallow the deduction where the dealer failed to prove genuine inter-State sales to registered dealers, movement of goods, and receipt of sale consideration. Non-compliance with procedures for notifying lost or obsolete forms in the Official Gazette did not by itself establish entitlement to the deduction. The revisional authority also retained suo motu jurisdiction to examine legality and propriety, including relevant material beyond the original assessment record, and that power was not defeated by the reassessment having become time-barred or by the matter reaching it through a successor assessing authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355233" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 981 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165063</link>
      <description>ST 15 declaration forms supporting concessional tax treatment were treated only as prima facie evidence, so the Revenue could disallow the deduction where the dealer failed to prove genuine inter-State sales to registered dealers, movement of goods, and receipt of sale consideration. Non-compliance with procedures for notifying lost or obsolete forms in the Official Gazette did not by itself establish entitlement to the deduction. The revisional authority also retained suo motu jurisdiction to examine legality and propriety, including relevant material beyond the original assessment record, and that power was not defeated by the reassessment having become time-barred or by the matter reaching it through a successor assessing authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165063</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>