<?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>2018 (12) TMI 1003 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372234</link>
    <description>Slips recovered during inspection did not constitute reliable material to show sales suppression where the dealer had closed business before the relevant year, kept no regular books apart from the cash book, and the disputed slips were found to be estimate slips already accounted for by a sister concern. One slip contained only an inserted year, and another showed stock particulars without supporting sale details such as consignor, consignee, date, items sold, or mode of payment. As the additional documents did not displace the concurrent factual findings, reopening of the completed assessment under section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was not justified and the revision was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2018 10:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=547477" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1003 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372234</link>
      <description>Slips recovered during inspection did not constitute reliable material to show sales suppression where the dealer had closed business before the relevant year, kept no regular books apart from the cash book, and the disputed slips were found to be estimate slips already accounted for by a sister concern. One slip contained only an inserted year, and another showed stock particulars without supporting sale details such as consignor, consignee, date, items sold, or mode of payment. As the additional documents did not displace the concurrent factual findings, reopening of the completed assessment under section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was not justified and the revision was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372234</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>