<?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>2022 (2) TMI 727 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418476</link>
    <description>Additional evidence may be admitted at the appellate stage where the assessee shows due diligence and inability to produce the material earlier, and a refusal that ignores that statutory basis is unsustainable. Deduction for goods returned within six months was allowed because the debit note, invoices and gate passes supported the claim and the record showed inconsistent rejection without proper reason. A finding that the goods were sold as machinery parts could not stand when it rested on suspicion rather than inquiry into machining facilities or activity. Claimed tax deposits also had to be verified and credited before demand was determined. The sustained demand on disputed items was therefore deleted, subject to verification of the additional evidence and deposits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2022 17:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=670514" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (2) TMI 727 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418476</link>
      <description>Additional evidence may be admitted at the appellate stage where the assessee shows due diligence and inability to produce the material earlier, and a refusal that ignores that statutory basis is unsustainable. Deduction for goods returned within six months was allowed because the debit note, invoices and gate passes supported the claim and the record showed inconsistent rejection without proper reason. A finding that the goods were sold as machinery parts could not stand when it rested on suspicion rather than inquiry into machining facilities or activity. Claimed tax deposits also had to be verified and credited before demand was determined. The sustained demand on disputed items was therefore deleted, subject to verification of the additional evidence and deposits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418476</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>