<?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>1975 (10) TMI 89 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151133</link>
    <description>Under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, the Commissioner&#039;s revisional power extended to a first appellate order passed by the Deputy Commissioner because the statute treated that officer as one appointed to assist the Commissioner and expressly allowed revision of such orders if erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The earlier precedent under a different statutory scheme was distinguishable. For limitation under section 39(2), the three-year period was computed from the date of issue of the revisional notice, not the date of service. On that basis, the notice was within time and the revisional action was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 May 2013 17:51:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168172" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (10) TMI 89 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151133</link>
      <description>Under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, the Commissioner&#039;s revisional power extended to a first appellate order passed by the Deputy Commissioner because the statute treated that officer as one appointed to assist the Commissioner and expressly allowed revision of such orders if erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The earlier precedent under a different statutory scheme was distinguishable. For limitation under section 39(2), the three-year period was computed from the date of issue of the revisional notice, not the date of service. On that basis, the notice was within time and the revisional action was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151133</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>