https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255022 Concurrent factual findings supported the conclusion that goods purchased in Maharashtra were brought into Gujarat and sold there, because the alleged out-of-state buyers were not shown to be genuine or registered, the invoices were unsubstantiated, and payment was received in Gujarat. In appellate jurisdiction under Section 78 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, the court would not reappreciate evidence or disturb such findings absent perversity, so the Gujarat tax liability was upheld. The limitation challenge also failed because the assessment period had been validly extended under the proviso to Section 42(2) with the assessee's consent, and the order was passed within that extended period. The tribunal's merits decision was not interfered with since the assessee had itself argued the matter on merits. en-us Thu, 12 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2015 10:17:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255022 Concurrent factual findings supported the conclusion that goods purchased in Maharashtra were brought into Gujarat and sold there, because the alleged out-of-state buyers were not shown to be genuine or registered, the invoices were unsubstantiated, and payment was received in Gujarat. In appellate jurisdiction under Section 78 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, the court would not reappreciate evidence or disturb such findings absent perversity, so the Gujarat tax liability was upheld. The limitation challenge also failed because the assessment period had been validly extended under the proviso to Section 42(2) with the assessee's consent, and the order was passed within that extended period. The tribunal's merits decision was not interfered with since the assessee had itself argued the matter on merits. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 12 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255022