<?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>1958 (8) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127856</link>
    <description>Section 22-B of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 was treated as procedural, not as imposing a new substantive burden or disturbing vested rights, so it could apply to revision of orders passed before its commencement. The Commissioner&#039;s revisional power was therefore available in respect of earlier assessment orders, provided the revisional order was made within the two-year limitation prescribed by the provision. The challenge based on section 11-A failed because that section governed reopening by the original assessing authority and did not restrict separate revisional jurisdiction. The order of remand was accordingly upheld as a valid exercise of revision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:01:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164731" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (8) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127856</link>
      <description>Section 22-B of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 was treated as procedural, not as imposing a new substantive burden or disturbing vested rights, so it could apply to revision of orders passed before its commencement. The Commissioner&#039;s revisional power was therefore available in respect of earlier assessment orders, provided the revisional order was made within the two-year limitation prescribed by the provision. The challenge based on section 11-A failed because that section governed reopening by the original assessing authority and did not restrict separate revisional jurisdiction. The order of remand was accordingly upheld as a valid exercise of revision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127856</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>