<?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>2014 (5) TMI 414 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247487</link>
    <description>Permission to reopen assessment under the proviso to Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was upheld because the assessing authority had relevant material supporting a bona fide belief that turnover had escaped assessment. The court noted that, at the stage of initiation, the sufficiency of material is not for detailed judicial review, but the material must have a rational connection with the belief and not rest on mere suspicion. Search findings of excess finished goods and raw material not recorded in the books provided prima facie basis for reopening, and the dealer could explain the discrepancy in reassessment proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2014 13:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355557" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 414 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247487</link>
      <description>Permission to reopen assessment under the proviso to Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was upheld because the assessing authority had relevant material supporting a bona fide belief that turnover had escaped assessment. The court noted that, at the stage of initiation, the sufficiency of material is not for detailed judicial review, but the material must have a rational connection with the belief and not rest on mere suspicion. Search findings of excess finished goods and raw material not recorded in the books provided prima facie basis for reopening, and the dealer could explain the discrepancy in reassessment proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247487</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>