<?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>1988 (5) TMI 335 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102771</link>
    <description>Assessment proceedings initiated by notice after returns were filed were treated as pending until final assessment, and they could be completed under the ordinary assessment procedure. The Court held that, for assessments under the relevant provisions corresponding to sub-sections (2) and (3), no fixed statutory limitation barred completion where the statute had not prescribed one. It distinguished best judgment assessments and escaped turnover cases, declined to read in a rigid time limit, and directed that pending assessments be concluded on the existing record and any further material available, with expedition in tax administration. The challenge failed and the petitions were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2015 10:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (5) TMI 335 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102771</link>
      <description>Assessment proceedings initiated by notice after returns were filed were treated as pending until final assessment, and they could be completed under the ordinary assessment procedure. The Court held that, for assessments under the relevant provisions corresponding to sub-sections (2) and (3), no fixed statutory limitation barred completion where the statute had not prescribed one. It distinguished best judgment assessments and escaped turnover cases, declined to read in a rigid time limit, and directed that pending assessments be concluded on the existing record and any further material available, with expedition in tax administration. The challenge failed and the petitions were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102771</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>