<?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>2025 (5) TMI 1361 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771089</link>
    <description>Binding departmental circulars governing Form III B had to be followed by the authorities when processing concessional purchase declarations and taking consequential assessment action. Liability under Section 3 B could not be imposed unless there was a specific finding that a particular Form III B was false or wrong; a general yearly assessment order without identifying the relevant form or transaction was insufficient. The provision required transaction-wise scrutiny, and the absence of any column in Form III B for the tax rate did not justify adverse inference against the dealer. The Tribunal&#039;s order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision by the assessing authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 May 2025 08:29:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=823189" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1361 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771089</link>
      <description>Binding departmental circulars governing Form III B had to be followed by the authorities when processing concessional purchase declarations and taking consequential assessment action. Liability under Section 3 B could not be imposed unless there was a specific finding that a particular Form III B was false or wrong; a general yearly assessment order without identifying the relevant form or transaction was insufficient. The provision required transaction-wise scrutiny, and the absence of any column in Form III B for the tax rate did not justify adverse inference against the dealer. The Tribunal&#039;s order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision by the assessing authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771089</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>