<?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>1966 (3) TMI 70 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144087</link>
    <description>The limitation period for escaped assessment under section 15 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 was held to govern a best judgment assessment of an unregistered dealer under section 14(6), because the statutory scheme treated that proceeding as one for escaped turnover. Reading sections 14 and 15 together, the court applied the same limitation logic used for dealers who failed to file returns, and rejected a distinction that would have left unregistered dealers outside the time bar. As the proposed assessment was time-barred, the consequential penalty under section 14(7), which depended on a valid section 14(6) assessment, also could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:03:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (3) TMI 70 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144087</link>
      <description>The limitation period for escaped assessment under section 15 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 was held to govern a best judgment assessment of an unregistered dealer under section 14(6), because the statutory scheme treated that proceeding as one for escaped turnover. Reading sections 14 and 15 together, the court applied the same limitation logic used for dealers who failed to file returns, and rejected a distinction that would have left unregistered dealers outside the time bar. As the proposed assessment was time-barred, the consequential penalty under section 14(7), which depended on a valid section 14(6) assessment, also could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144087</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>