<?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>1967 (11) TMI 99 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100501</link>
    <description>Under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, once a dealer files returns and assessment proceedings begin, a notice under section 8(2) is a step in completing a pending assessment and is not treated as initiation of escaped-assessment proceedings. Section 10 therefore does not impose a general three-year limit on completion of a properly commenced return-based assessment. The distinction is that where no return is filed, section 10 governs the commencement of proceedings for escaped turnover, but where returns are filed the assessment remains pending until completed. The Court explained that Ghanshyamdas was confined to its own statutory scheme and did not bar such a notice after three years.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137552" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (11) TMI 99 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100501</link>
      <description>Under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, once a dealer files returns and assessment proceedings begin, a notice under section 8(2) is a step in completing a pending assessment and is not treated as initiation of escaped-assessment proceedings. Section 10 therefore does not impose a general three-year limit on completion of a properly commenced return-based assessment. The distinction is that where no return is filed, section 10 governs the commencement of proceedings for escaped turnover, but where returns are filed the assessment remains pending until completed. The Court explained that Ghanshyamdas was confined to its own statutory scheme and did not bar such a notice after three years.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100501</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>