<?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>2015 (8) TMI 1185 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263268</link>
    <description>Reassessment under the U.P. Trade Tax Act requires a bona fide, rational belief based on relevant material that turnover has escaped assessment; a mere conjecture, extraneous consideration, or change of opinion is insufficient. The material relied upon for alleging excessive melting loss was found erroneous, because the balance sheet and assessment records showed finished goods and allied products had already been accounted for, and the actual melting loss was only about 4%. As the books of account and excise registers had already been examined in the original assessment, the permission for reassessment and the consequential notice were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2016 14:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395249" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1185 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263268</link>
      <description>Reassessment under the U.P. Trade Tax Act requires a bona fide, rational belief based on relevant material that turnover has escaped assessment; a mere conjecture, extraneous consideration, or change of opinion is insufficient. The material relied upon for alleging excessive melting loss was found erroneous, because the balance sheet and assessment records showed finished goods and allied products had already been accounted for, and the actual melting loss was only about 4%. As the books of account and excise registers had already been examined in the original assessment, the permission for reassessment and the consequential notice were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263268</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>