<?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>1959 (7) TMI 47 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127954</link>
    <description>A notice issued by the competent assessing authority within the prescribed limitation period validly initiates assessment proceedings. The record showed that the Sales Tax Officer was the authority to receive and scrutinise the returns in the first instance, and it was not established on the relevant date that the dealer&#039;s turnover exceeded the pecuniary limit removing that jurisdiction. The later transfer of the case to the Assistant Commissioner did not retrospectively invalidate steps already taken within jurisdiction, and the subsequent notices did not affect the legality of proceedings that had lawfully commenced earlier. The challenge to jurisdiction and limitation therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:29:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164826" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (7) TMI 47 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127954</link>
      <description>A notice issued by the competent assessing authority within the prescribed limitation period validly initiates assessment proceedings. The record showed that the Sales Tax Officer was the authority to receive and scrutinise the returns in the first instance, and it was not established on the relevant date that the dealer&#039;s turnover exceeded the pecuniary limit removing that jurisdiction. The later transfer of the case to the Assistant Commissioner did not retrospectively invalidate steps already taken within jurisdiction, and the subsequent notices did not affect the legality of proceedings that had lawfully commenced earlier. The challenge to jurisdiction and limitation therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127954</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>