<?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>1957 (4) TMI 49 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127609</link>
    <description>Where an effective statutory appeal or revision is available against a tax assessment, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked, and the writ challenge failed on that ground. The amended revision provision was construed to apply to assessments made for earlier periods as well, because it authorised revision of &quot;any assessment made&quot; and operated on existing assessments within the prescribed time limit; the retrospectivity objection therefore failed. Alleged non-service of notices did not vitiate the proceedings, as notices were sent to the registered place of business, repeated opportunities were given, and there was no legal duty to notify every adjournment or use any other address. The challenge failed on natural justice grounds, and the application was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:54:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164484" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (4) TMI 49 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127609</link>
      <description>Where an effective statutory appeal or revision is available against a tax assessment, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked, and the writ challenge failed on that ground. The amended revision provision was construed to apply to assessments made for earlier periods as well, because it authorised revision of &quot;any assessment made&quot; and operated on existing assessments within the prescribed time limit; the retrospectivity objection therefore failed. Alleged non-service of notices did not vitiate the proceedings, as notices were sent to the registered place of business, repeated opportunities were given, and there was no legal duty to notify every adjournment or use any other address. The challenge failed on natural justice grounds, and the application was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127609</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>