Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID :

INITIATION OF SOU MOTO REVISION PROCEEDINGS.

Sadanand Bulbule

Dear Sirs

Here is an academic issue lingering in the minds of many including the revisional authorities under various Acts. The issue though looks very simple but it has very wide ramifications in terms of validity of SMR jurisdiction followed by its outcome.

ISSUE.

When does the initiation of sou moto revision begin? Whether from the date of calling for the records? Or from the moment the issue of notice proposing to revise some proceedings? In other words, when does the limitation to pass the sou moto revison order begin?

Of course, the whole matrix depends upon the specific language used in the respective Acts, for example, ' shall pass order within one year from the initiation of proceeding or calling for the records'. When looked carefully at the eventualities provided under the Act, one is curious to know multiples dimensions of eventualities and the Legislative intent behind such eventualities too.

In my limited understanding the eventualities may be, either the revisional authority on its own may call for the records for revision or the the lower authorities may also submit the records for revision, if the need be, for various reasons.

Importantly in the present prevailing situation, whether COVID-19 lockdown period needs to be excluded while computing the prescribed 'one year' limitation period?

In this matter, the honourable experts are requested to throw fresh/more light on this subject with latest research articles/ judicial rulings in the larger interest of all the stake holders. My humble submission is, this is not a personal question for commercial purpose but only to demystify the issue for the benefit of all the subscribers of TMI.

With respects.

Discussion on Suo Moto Revision Initiation and COVID-19's Impact on Tax Deadlines Extension, Including Karnataka's Six-Month Extension. A forum participant raised a question about the initiation of suo moto revision proceedings, questioning whether it begins with the calling for records or the issuance of a notice to revise proceedings, and how the COVID-19 lockdown affects the limitation period. In response, another participant highlighted Karnataka's extension of tax-related deadlines due to the pandemic, detailing specific orders that extend various tax periods by six months. Another participant praised the thought-provoking nature of the question but admitted a lack of expertise in VAT/CST matters. The original poster emphasized the forum's role in deep, thoughtful discussion rather than quick answers. (AI Summary)
answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Issues