<?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>1956 (3) TMI 32 - ASSAM HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127645</link>
    <description>Completed sales tax assessment orders were challenged through writ jurisdiction after no appeal or revision was pursued and the assessments had been left to attain finality for years. The Court treated the prolonged inaction and settled status of the orders as strong reasons against interference under Articles 226 and 227, particularly where recovery had already followed in part. On those facts, the Court declined to reopen the assessment proceedings or quash the orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:20:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164520" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (3) TMI 32 - ASSAM HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127645</link>
      <description>Completed sales tax assessment orders were challenged through writ jurisdiction after no appeal or revision was pursued and the assessments had been left to attain finality for years. The Court treated the prolonged inaction and settled status of the orders as strong reasons against interference under Articles 226 and 227, particularly where recovery had already followed in part. On those facts, the Court declined to reopen the assessment proceedings or quash the orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>