<?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>1968 (10) TMI 90 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148470</link>
    <description>Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act permits rectification only of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. A classification dispute over cement concrete spun pipes could not be reopened through that power because determining whether the goods were &quot;sanitary fittings&quot; would require fresh examination of the merits and reappraisal of the original assessment. Where the assessing authority had consciously applied a 2 per cent rate, the matter involved an error of judgment rather than a patent or clerical mistake. On that basis, rectification under section 22 was without jurisdiction and the proposed notice was liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:52:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166510" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (10) TMI 90 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148470</link>
      <description>Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act permits rectification only of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. A classification dispute over cement concrete spun pipes could not be reopened through that power because determining whether the goods were &quot;sanitary fittings&quot; would require fresh examination of the merits and reappraisal of the original assessment. Where the assessing authority had consciously applied a 2 per cent rate, the matter involved an error of judgment rather than a patent or clerical mistake. On that basis, rectification under section 22 was without jurisdiction and the proposed notice was liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148470</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>