https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128809 The Madras HC commentary explains that revisional power under section 22-A was wide enough to consider the whole assessment and uphold it without prejudicial interference. It also states that notices under section 11(5) were valid because prior satisfaction and hearing were conditions for making the assessment, not for issuing notice. On limitation, the retrospective amendment to section 11(5) was treated as removing the earlier time-bar and as requiring the relevant period to be computed by the full period of default, not by quarter. It further states that a dissolved partnership firm could still be assessed for tax liabilities arising during its existence. en-us Wed, 16 Oct 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:24:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128809 The Madras HC commentary explains that revisional power under section 22-A was wide enough to consider the whole assessment and uphold it without prejudicial interference. It also states that notices under section 11(5) were valid because prior satisfaction and hearing were conditions for making the assessment, not for issuing notice. On limitation, the retrospective amendment to section 11(5) was treated as removing the earlier time-bar and as requiring the relevant period to be computed by the full period of default, not by quarter. It further states that a dissolved partnership firm could still be assessed for tax liabilities arising during its existence. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 16 Oct 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128809