<?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>1973 (4) TMI 102 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150589</link>
    <description>An ex parte assessment under the U.P. Sales Tax Act raised two separate matters: the propriety of proceeding ex parte and the quantum of assessment. The text states that an appeal lay only on the quantum side, while a grievance about lack of notice or sufficient cause for non-appearance had to be pursued by an application under section 30; because the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to decide the ex parte issue, the assessment did not merge with the appellate order for that purpose. The section 30 application therefore remained maintainable despite dismissal of the appeal, and the limitation objection based on a supposed time-barred reassessment was rejected as resting on an incorrect assumption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 18:45:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167629" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (4) TMI 102 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150589</link>
      <description>An ex parte assessment under the U.P. Sales Tax Act raised two separate matters: the propriety of proceeding ex parte and the quantum of assessment. The text states that an appeal lay only on the quantum side, while a grievance about lack of notice or sufficient cause for non-appearance had to be pursued by an application under section 30; because the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to decide the ex parte issue, the assessment did not merge with the appellate order for that purpose. The section 30 application therefore remained maintainable despite dismissal of the appeal, and the limitation objection based on a supposed time-barred reassessment was rejected as resting on an incorrect assumption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>