<?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 (6) TMI 1632 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281652</link>
    <description>Commercial documents must be read as a whole, and the operative agreement, debit notes and surrounding conduct showed a purchase of shrimps/catch rather than a bare trawler lease. The agreement required HLL to buy the catch from four trawlers, treated payments as sale consideration, and allocated taxes and duties on sale transactions to HLL. The absence of a fresh show-cause notice after remand did not vitiate reassessment or penalty because the taxable event was already evident from the existing material and the remand covered fresh consideration on that record. HLL&#039;s failure to produce books and vouchers after remand justified adverse inference, and the penalty for wilful suppression was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Jun 2019 05:41:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=576983" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 1632 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281652</link>
      <description>Commercial documents must be read as a whole, and the operative agreement, debit notes and surrounding conduct showed a purchase of shrimps/catch rather than a bare trawler lease. The agreement required HLL to buy the catch from four trawlers, treated payments as sale consideration, and allocated taxes and duties on sale transactions to HLL. The absence of a fresh show-cause notice after remand did not vitiate reassessment or penalty because the taxable event was already evident from the existing material and the remand covered fresh consideration on that record. HLL&#039;s failure to produce books and vouchers after remand justified adverse inference, and the penalty for wilful suppression was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>