https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339652 Reassessment under Section 29 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 required a recorded, bona fide reason to believe that turnover had escaped assessment, supported by material. Rule 9(1) allowed deduction of actual labour, service and profit components, while Rule 9(3) applied only where separate accounts were not maintained, were unreliable, or did not credibly show those components. As the recorded reasons and sanction order did not quantify the alleged excess deduction or identify any material showing faulty or absent accounts, the jurisdictional preconditions were not satisfied. The sanction for reassessment was therefore without jurisdiction and the writ petition succeeded. en-us Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Mar 2018 12:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339652 Reassessment under Section 29 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 required a recorded, bona fide reason to believe that turnover had escaped assessment, supported by material. Rule 9(1) allowed deduction of actual labour, service and profit components, while Rule 9(3) applied only where separate accounts were not maintained, were unreliable, or did not credibly show those components. As the recorded reasons and sanction order did not quantify the alleged excess deduction or identify any material showing faulty or absent accounts, the jurisdictional preconditions were not satisfied. The sanction for reassessment was therefore without jurisdiction and the writ petition succeeded. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339652