<?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>1972 (9) TMI 109 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100801</link>
    <description>A reopening notice under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act is not invalid merely because it does not expressly state the reasons for issue, since the provision is a machinery mechanism for escaped or under-assessed turnover and does not require reasons to be recited in the notice itself. The statutory basis for reassessment must still exist, and any material relied on against the dealer must be disclosed with a fair opportunity to respond before use in reassessment. Where the record showed clandestine dealings and seizure of documents indicating non-disclosure of turnover, the notice was sustained and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2026 15:17:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137851" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (9) TMI 109 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100801</link>
      <description>A reopening notice under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act is not invalid merely because it does not expressly state the reasons for issue, since the provision is a machinery mechanism for escaped or under-assessed turnover and does not require reasons to be recited in the notice itself. The statutory basis for reassessment must still exist, and any material relied on against the dealer must be disclosed with a fair opportunity to respond before use in reassessment. Where the record showed clandestine dealings and seizure of documents indicating non-disclosure of turnover, the notice was sustained and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100801</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>