<?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>1972 (6) TMI 68 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150499</link>
    <description>Reassessment for escaped sales tax assessment under section 19-A(1) requires information received after the original assessment and a satisfaction based on that later information. Material concerning the Price Control Order, fixed prices and exclusions was already available and considered during the original assessment; reopening on the same material was therefore only a change of opinion and lacked jurisdiction. The reassessment notices were liable to be quashed. The Commissioner could validly delegate section 19-A powers to a Superintendent because the statutory rules did not prohibit that delegation, and the related constitutional objections under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 16:34:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167539" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (6) TMI 68 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150499</link>
      <description>Reassessment for escaped sales tax assessment under section 19-A(1) requires information received after the original assessment and a satisfaction based on that later information. Material concerning the Price Control Order, fixed prices and exclusions was already available and considered during the original assessment; reopening on the same material was therefore only a change of opinion and lacked jurisdiction. The reassessment notices were liable to be quashed. The Commissioner could validly delegate section 19-A powers to a Superintendent because the statutory rules did not prohibit that delegation, and the related constitutional objections under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150499</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>