<?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>2021 (3) TMI 1022 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405694</link>
    <description>Reassessment notices based on an alleged sale of diesel for consideration were challenged after a completed assessment, and the Court held that the Assessing Officer had to place at least prima facie material to support the foundational allegation before proceeding. As no reply or supporting evidence was produced to meet the petitioner&#039;s assertions, the Court found the reassessment attempt to rest on an unsubstantiated premise. The cited authorities were not treated as an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, which continues to depend on the facts and the Court&#039;s self-imposed restraint. The applications to vacate the interim stay were rejected, and the stay on the impugned notices remained in force.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2021 09:33:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=639847" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (3) TMI 1022 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405694</link>
      <description>Reassessment notices based on an alleged sale of diesel for consideration were challenged after a completed assessment, and the Court held that the Assessing Officer had to place at least prima facie material to support the foundational allegation before proceeding. As no reply or supporting evidence was produced to meet the petitioner&#039;s assertions, the Court found the reassessment attempt to rest on an unsubstantiated premise. The cited authorities were not treated as an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, which continues to depend on the facts and the Court&#039;s self-imposed restraint. The applications to vacate the interim stay were rejected, and the stay on the impugned notices remained in force.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405694</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>