<?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>2023 (1) TMI 540 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432793</link>
    <description>Revisional jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Odisha Sales Tax Act, 1947 was confined to orders of the Tribunal under Section 23(3) and was not available to challenge appellate orders passed under Section 23(4)(c)(ii); the revision petitions were therefore held misdirected and not maintainable. On the merits, the Court declined to interfere with concurrent factual findings on suppression of sales, rejection of accounts, and reworking of taxable turnover because the conclusions rested on seized material, admissions, and evidentiary appreciation, and no perversity, irrelevant reliance, or error apparent was shown. The statutory orders were sustained and no revisional interference was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2023 11:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=701641" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (1) TMI 540 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432793</link>
      <description>Revisional jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Odisha Sales Tax Act, 1947 was confined to orders of the Tribunal under Section 23(3) and was not available to challenge appellate orders passed under Section 23(4)(c)(ii); the revision petitions were therefore held misdirected and not maintainable. On the merits, the Court declined to interfere with concurrent factual findings on suppression of sales, rejection of accounts, and reworking of taxable turnover because the conclusions rested on seized material, admissions, and evidentiary appreciation, and no perversity, irrelevant reliance, or error apparent was shown. The statutory orders were sustained and no revisional interference was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432793</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>