https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128813 A sales tax notice for the extended period was upheld because the incorrect terminal date was treated as a clerical error, the assessee was directed to produce accounts for the full assessed period, and the thirty-day requirement in the rule was read as directory in light of the word "ordinarily"; reasonable opportunity of hearing was therefore found sufficient. Section 11(5) was construed to mean that "period" covers the entire default period during which a dealer wilfully failed to register, not merely the quarterly return period. On that construction, the assessment was within limitation and not time-barred. en-us Wed, 11 Sep 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:24:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128813 A sales tax notice for the extended period was upheld because the incorrect terminal date was treated as a clerical error, the assessee was directed to produce accounts for the full assessed period, and the thirty-day requirement in the rule was read as directory in light of the word "ordinarily"; reasonable opportunity of hearing was therefore found sufficient. Section 11(5) was construed to mean that "period" covers the entire default period during which a dealer wilfully failed to register, not merely the quarterly return period. On that construction, the assessment was within limitation and not time-barred. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 11 Sep 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128813