<?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 (3) TMI 51 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127640</link>
    <description>Reassessment notices under section 11-A of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act were confined to the specific assessment period concerned, because the power to reopen turnover was limited to three calendar years from the expiry of that period. On that period-wise construction, the earlier notices were time-barred and without jurisdiction, while the later notices fell within limitation and were valid. Strict construction of the taxing statute was applied in favour of the taxpayer. Use of account books already in the taxing authority&#039;s possession for reassessment did not amount to testimonial compulsion, so Article 20(3) was not infringed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:40:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164515" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (3) TMI 51 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127640</link>
      <description>Reassessment notices under section 11-A of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act were confined to the specific assessment period concerned, because the power to reopen turnover was limited to three calendar years from the expiry of that period. On that period-wise construction, the earlier notices were time-barred and without jurisdiction, while the later notices fell within limitation and were valid. Strict construction of the taxing statute was applied in favour of the taxpayer. Use of account books already in the taxing authority&#039;s possession for reassessment did not amount to testimonial compulsion, so Article 20(3) was not infringed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>