https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128743 A dealer must substantively comply with a notice under section 11(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 by supporting the return with evidence; merely raising jurisdictional or limitation objections is not compliance. On the facts, the dealer's reply did not seek to prove the return or ask to lead evidence, so section 11(4) governing best judgment assessment was attracted. However, because the assessment was made after the statutory period had expired, it could not be sustained and was quashed. en-us Mon, 23 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:24:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128743 A dealer must substantively comply with a notice under section 11(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 by supporting the return with evidence; merely raising jurisdictional or limitation objections is not compliance. On the facts, the dealer's reply did not seek to prove the return or ask to lead evidence, so section 11(4) governing best judgment assessment was attracted. However, because the assessment was made after the statutory period had expired, it could not be sustained and was quashed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 23 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128743