https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128757 Where an original assessment did not disclose any conscious decision excluding hire-purchase turnover from tax, the omission amounted to escapement of turnover within section 16(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Madras HC held that a note in the file could not override the assessment order, and since the taxable turnover had not been brought to charge on the face of the assessment, reassessment was within jurisdiction. The court found it unnecessary to decide the broader question whether section 16 could also apply where taxability had earlier been consciously decided against the revenue. The reassessment challenge therefore failed. en-us Wed, 24 Oct 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:23:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128757 Where an original assessment did not disclose any conscious decision excluding hire-purchase turnover from tax, the omission amounted to escapement of turnover within section 16(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Madras HC held that a note in the file could not override the assessment order, and since the taxable turnover had not been brought to charge on the face of the assessment, reassessment was within jurisdiction. The court found it unnecessary to decide the broader question whether section 16 could also apply where taxability had earlier been consciously decided against the revenue. The reassessment challenge therefore failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 24 Oct 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128757