<?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>2011 (12) TMI 495 - Orissa High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168168</link>
    <description>Audit assessment under rule 12(3) must be completed strictly on the basis of the audit visit report and the material contained in it; the assessing authority cannot import material from a vigilance report or other source. The limitation for escaped assessment does not control audit assessment, and the one-year period from receipt of the audit visit report remains applicable. The assessment was also held to have breached natural justice because the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to meet voluminous adverse material, and the dealer&#039;s stock transfer claim could not be rejected by generalising from selected transactions. The assessment was set aside and remanded for fresh audit assessment confined to the audit visit report.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2015 17:59:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=374562" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 495 - Orissa High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168168</link>
      <description>Audit assessment under rule 12(3) must be completed strictly on the basis of the audit visit report and the material contained in it; the assessing authority cannot import material from a vigilance report or other source. The limitation for escaped assessment does not control audit assessment, and the one-year period from receipt of the audit visit report remains applicable. The assessment was also held to have breached natural justice because the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to meet voluminous adverse material, and the dealer&#039;s stock transfer claim could not be rejected by generalising from selected transactions. The assessment was set aside and remanded for fresh audit assessment confined to the audit visit report.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168168</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>