https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127919 Reassessment for escaped turnover was upheld where the authority acted within the jurisdiction conferred by the Sales Tax Rules, even though the order did not expressly mention rule 17(3-A). The omission of the specific rule reference did not invalidate the reassessment because the substance of the action showed that it was made under the delegated power for escaped turnover assessments. Rule 17(3-A), together with the ancillary rule 17(1-A), was considered within the rule-making power under section 19(2)(f) of the Sales Tax Act, as that power covered both escaped turnover assessment and specification of the competent authority. No inconsistency with the Act was shown. en-us Wed, 25 Nov 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Mar 2013 11:58:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127919 Reassessment for escaped turnover was upheld where the authority acted within the jurisdiction conferred by the Sales Tax Rules, even though the order did not expressly mention rule 17(3-A). The omission of the specific rule reference did not invalidate the reassessment because the substance of the action showed that it was made under the delegated power for escaped turnover assessments. Rule 17(3-A), together with the ancillary rule 17(1-A), was considered within the rule-making power under section 19(2)(f) of the Sales Tax Act, as that power covered both escaped turnover assessment and specification of the competent authority. No inconsistency with the Act was shown. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 25 Nov 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127919