<?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>2016 (8) TMI 1341 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200097</link>
    <description>Eligibility for an exemption certificate under Section 4-A of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act depended on the assessee proving that the unit was new and that the machinery had not been previously used elsewhere. The burden lay on the assessee, but the authorities found no supporting material that the machinery was brought into Uttar Pradesh as claimed, and contemporaneous inquiries indicated that the alleged suppliers had not supplied it. Later departmental verification also failed to confirm the claim. On these factual findings, no legal error was shown to justify interference in revisional jurisdiction, and the challenge to the adverse determination failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:12:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=513840" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 1341 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200097</link>
      <description>Eligibility for an exemption certificate under Section 4-A of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act depended on the assessee proving that the unit was new and that the machinery had not been previously used elsewhere. The burden lay on the assessee, but the authorities found no supporting material that the machinery was brought into Uttar Pradesh as claimed, and contemporaneous inquiries indicated that the alleged suppliers had not supplied it. Later departmental verification also failed to confirm the claim. On these factual findings, no legal error was shown to justify interference in revisional jurisdiction, and the challenge to the adverse determination failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200097</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>